Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 67 of 67
  1. #51
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    What has Pioneer done?

  2. #52
    Audio casualty StevenSurprenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    592
    Mr.Peabody,

    Not to change the subject, but what is your opinion of your PS Audio Quintessence power conditioner?

  3. #53
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    What has Pioneer done?
    Nothing special really... launched 2 new integrated amps and matching SACD players... and have received a few 5 star reviews from WhatHifi? (UK)....

    I just take it as an encouraging sign when brands that have been more focused on HT Receivers are now trying to get back into dedicated audio...

  4. #54
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    I like the Quentessence a lot. It noticeably reduced noise, or made the background quieter. It's not like I heard noise before but you can tell when it's gone, if that makes sense. I also felt like my picture was brighter on my TV. Some one else hear tried one based on a thread I posted here about it but he didn't seem to notice as much difference. For all it does it's priced reasonable too. What it potentially will do for one has a lot of variables but I definitely think it's worth trying and for what it done for me I feel it's worth the money.

    I hadn't realized Pioneer put out any integrateds, are they in the Elite line? Maybe companies are starting to wake up and realize by going all HT they left behind a sizeable customer base. I think companies like Pioneer will have a tough time competing in that market though going against brands like Rotel or Cambridge which are established as that mid hi fi area. Unless you come out with a knock out product like the Onkyo 9555 it's a task to get respect once you've been branded a mass market bottom feeder.

  5. #55
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
    ...........
    I hadn't realized Pioneer put out any integrateds, are they in the Elite line? Maybe companies are starting to wake up and realize by going all HT they left behind a sizeable customer base. I think companies like Pioneer will have a tough time competing in that market though going against brands like Rotel or Cambridge which are established as that mid hi fi area. Unless you come out with a knock out product like the Onkyo 9555 it's a task to get respect once you've been branded a mass market bottom feeder.
    Yep, they're in the Elite Line... and I totally agree that they will have a really hard time competing with the established Rotel, Cambridge, Marantz and NAD products....

    I really hope this is the start of a strong 2 channel return... As I have noticed quite a few 2.1 channel HT offerings being pushed now... as it seems that many people are finding 5.1 and 7.1 setups very difficult to set-up (in terms of both placement and price)....

    Personally, I haven't had a multichannel setup in almost 10 years.... So I guess I'm a little biased towards 2 channel...

  6. #56
    Aging Smartass
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Moore, SC
    Posts
    1,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani

    Personally, I haven't had a multichannel setup in almost 10 years.... So I guess I'm a little biased towards 2 channel...
    Insofar as seriously listening to music, I would have to agree with you; however, when it comes to home theatre, I have to say that I prefer the multi-channel setup. Before I moved from Colorado to South Carolina, my home had an "average" HT system with a cheapo JVC receiver, in-wall Niles speakers and a Yamaha 10" powered sub. Not something I particularly enjoyed listening to music on, but an absolute delight when watching DVD's.

    When I moved, I installed a high-quality 2-channel setup to which I connected my new HDTV and Satellite receiver. It consists of an Adcom GFP-565 preamp, a rotel RB-980BX amp, and a pair of B&W 802F Specials. Certainly equipment of a considerably higher order of fidelity than the JVC-based setup in my other home. So, which one do I prefer? The JVC setup, and by a very significant margin. There's just nothing like having the sounds swirl all around you to give you a more visceral feel to that which you're watching.

    The bass performance of the 2-channel setup, as well as the overall fidelity is superior to the multi-channel system, but the overall effect of the mult-channel is one I sorely miss.

  7. #57
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by emaidel
    The bass performance of the 2-channel setup, as well as the overall fidelity is superior to the multi-channel system, but the overall effect of the mult-channel is one I sorely miss.
    You've just described some of the reasons why I have separate music and HT systems. From my point of view, the objectives are different and conflict with each other. Since I do not have a projector arrangement, the last thing I want to do with the music system is to put a big box between the speakers.

    It is also a frequent occurrence when the wifey watches her TV shows on the big screen and I'm upstairs or in the garage listening to music.

    rw

  8. #58
    Mutant from table 9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    I think your analysis applies to more than just modding, possibly even to the majority of high-end audio.... With some it's about the ultra-expensive, limited edition audio products... others automatically dismiss anything too popular as 'mass market junk'... Ever notice how many audiophiles would never even dream of being caught listening to a B&W or Paradigm speaker, and insist that only a hand-made obscure brand of speakers made by an unknown manufacturer are worth buying?

    It's just human nature really... some want to fit in (buy what is popular), while others want to be rebellious (buy rare/obscure/modded items)...

    There is another option where modding, thriftyness, and obscurity intersect: The DIY crowd. I don't have a dedicated two channel right now. My wife has promised me a man cave in our next house (years away now with the housing collapse), but I'm still constantly thinking about what my two channel will be. When it comes to speakers, I can't stop thinking about buiding my own. I'm a decent woodworker and have plenty of patience so why not? How about some full range Fostex drivers in horn loaded boxes: Obscure, thrifty and high end all in one package.
    ______________________
    Joyce Summers: "You've got really great albums!"
    Rupert "Ripper" Giles: "Yeah... they're okay..."


    "Tha H-Dog listens easy, always has, always will." - Herbert Kornfeld (R.I.P.)

    "I lick the mothra moniters because they pump up the base!!" - Dusty Beiber

  9. #59
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Nah! How about this ...

    Quote Originally Posted by SlumpBuster
    ... I can't stop thinking about buiding my own. I'm a decent woodworker and have plenty of patience so why not? How about some full range Fostex drivers in horn loaded boxes: Obscure, thrifty and high end all in one package.
    Slump, forget those full range thinks. Go for a high quality multi-driver system with high-order crossovers. This is a design I worked out a while ago, but haven't built yet ...


    Note: you might have to add baffle shelf compensation to the design depending on speaker placement.

  10. #60
    Ajani
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    You've just described some of the reasons why I have separate music and HT systems. From my point of view, the objectives are different and conflict with each other. Since I do not have a projector arrangement, the last thing I want to do with the music system is to put a big box between the speakers.

    It is also a frequent occurrence when the wifey watches her TV shows on the big screen and I'm upstairs or in the garage listening to music.

    rw
    I think comparing HT to a dedicated 2 channel setup is kind of like comparing a Luxury SUV with a Corvette... Sure, both are cars... but which would you rather race around the track and which would you prefer to drive when collecting your new big screen tv?

  11. #61
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    I think comparing HT to a dedicated 2 channel setup is kind of like comparing a Luxury SUV with a Corvette...
    Well, I don't think that is an entirely fair perspective. I've heard one spectacular sounding and looking Magneplanar based MC/HT system where the Nordost Valhalla cables (for everything) alone cost as much as my music system. It also uses a new Sony three gun projector (and 100" screen) which eliminates the problem I have with the "big box" in the middle. Quad powered Nola Titan subs deliver better first octave extension than you find at an IMAX theater.

    It is a profound understatement to say it is very nice, but way too rich for my blood. For any budget, however, I would still prefer splitting the functions into two systems.

    rw

  12. #62
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    HT vs. music

    Quote Originally Posted by Ajani
    I think comparing HT to a dedicated 2 channel setup is kind of like comparing a Luxury SUV with a Corvette... Sure, both are cars... but which would you rather race around the track and which would you prefer to drive when collecting your new big screen tv?
    I agree about the different objective of HT versus a music system, but music system isn't synonomous with 2 channel. If I had the money and space, I'd live a multi-channel music system. Perhaps E-Stat would give us his impressions of Harry Pearson's M/C system.

  13. #63
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Perhaps E-Stat would give us his impressions of Harry Pearson's M/C system.
    That's the system I described above. Who else would have a dozen $2k Valhalla power cords in a system?

    There is no question that it is by far the very best HT system I've experienced. The arrangement is a bit short on cosmetics, but performs incredibly, both visually and sonically. As you indicated, it is also the MC setup driven superbly by an EMM Labs transport and SACD DAC. The last time I was there, we listened to the TAS Telarc sampler (created by HP of course) which really introduced me to what MC can do. I know this is gonna sound strange, but I just wasn't blown away. It was most certainly very nice, but it just didn't have the holographic magic of the main two channel system. Yes, there are very nice hall cues that lend a certain natural sort of spaciousness to the sound, but as good as the Maggies were, they just couldn't compete with the $350k Nola two channel setup.

    Sir TtT and I debated this topic a while back. Assuming a fixed budget (that is less than half a mill or so), one must necessarily compromise the quality of five channels vs. two channels. While each person may choose a different set of trade offs, I am by far more taken with a two channel system that can float an enormous holographic image in front of you that seems to span fifty feet wide by as many deep. One where you hear everything in the mix and its recording space. Subtle details of cuts you've heard hundreds of times before are now laid bare in a way you simply haven't heard before.

    I'm not saying MC is gimmicky, but by comparison, a two channel system with that kind of information retrieval (on all sources) can be downright spooky. I was planning on going up there this month but my business travel plans were canceled. He's got the latest VTL 7.5 MK II preamp and Siegfried amps on the main system. That is what I want to hear next.

    rw

  14. #64
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    St. Louis, MO, USA
    Posts
    10,176
    Estat you are a lucky guy.

    I would hate to give up my MC for HT. But as good as my processor is and my LINN amp music just doesn't sound as good as my 2 channel system. To be fair though I have not used the analog inputs of my processor. This could be a significant difference. As my systems have different jobs I just haven't experimented.

  15. #65
    Mutant from table 9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    Slump, forget those full range thinks. Go for a high quality multi-driver system with high-order crossovers. This is a design I worked out a while ago, but haven't built yet ...
    Thanks, I saved the design. In all seriousness, single driver attracts me, but some of the designs are so ugly. I'm a big believer in the equipment looking as good as it sounds (i.e. your gear). So much of the DIY crowd is populated by a "looks don't matter" mentality. You get people posting pics where you can see their underwear crumpled on the floor. Or piles of equipment all sitting on those stainless steel commercial kitchen racks. But, DIY still has an irresitable pull. A simple well designed two way can be put in a box that meets the dimmensions, but that still incorporates design elements that make it look good. i.e. quality laminates and finishes over MDF spraypainted black.

    PS: I checked out the Accutons on Madisound, very nice. You've gone a long way towards corrupting me.
    ______________________
    Joyce Summers: "You've got really great albums!"
    Rupert "Ripper" Giles: "Yeah... they're okay..."


    "Tha H-Dog listens easy, always has, always will." - Herbert Kornfeld (R.I.P.)

    "I lick the mothra moniters because they pump up the base!!" - Dusty Beiber

  16. #66
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    That's the system I described above. Who else would have a dozen $2k Valhalla power cords in a system?

    There is no question that it is by far the very best HT system I've experienced. The arrangement is a bit short on cosmetics, but performs incredibly, both visually and sonically. As you indicated, it is also the MC setup driven superbly by an EMM Labs transport and SACD DAC. The last time I was there, we listened to the TAS Telarc sampler (created by HP of course) which really introduced me to what MC can do. I know this is gonna sound strange, but I just wasn't blown away. It was most certainly very nice, but it just didn't have the holographic magic of the main two channel system. Yes, there are very nice hall cues that lend a certain natural sort of spaciousness to the sound, but as good as the Maggies were, they just couldn't compete with the $350k Nola two channel setup.
    Well, I also think that part of the reason is that some of Telarc's mixes tend to place too much into the surround channels. Among the acoustic 5.1 mixes I have, some of the Telarc mixes are among the least impressive as far as their depth perception goes. Telarc's two-channel mixes are done to create a mid-hall audience perspective, whereas the multichannel mixes seem to create a perspective forward of the conductor's podium. I actually like Telarc's studio multichannel mixes better, since at least those are not trying to sound "real."

    Did you have a chance to hear any other source material on that system? Some of the best mixes that I have are actually the old Vox quad mixes (newly transferred to SACD). They capture the hall ambience in way that I've never heard from any two-channel system.

    And the 5.1 mixes on the SF Symphony's Mahler series are a stunning capture of the experience inside of Davies Symphony Hall (which I visit about 2-4 times a season). The two-channel mix subjectively sounds quite good in its own right, but by comparison it sounds more like an exaggeration of the live experience. I can understand someone having a preference for the two-channel mix, but knowing how the orchestra actually sounds inside Davies Hall (which does not have great acoustics), the 5.1 mix is the only way to go if you're trying to capture the live experience as authentically as possible.
    Wooch's Home Theater 2.0 (Pics)
    Panasonic VIERA TH-C50FD18 50" 1080p
    Paradigm Reference Studio 40, CC, and 20 v.2
    Adire Audio Rava (EQ: Behringer Feedback Destroyer DSP1124)
    Yamaha RX-A1030
    Dual CS5000 (Ortofon OM30 Super)
    Sony UBP-X800
    Sony Playstation 3 (MediaLink OS X Server)
    Sony ES SCD-C2000ES
    JVC HR-S3912U
    Directv HR44 and WVB
    Logitech Harmony 700
    iPhone 5s/iPad 3
    Linksys WES610



    The Neverending DVD/BD Collection

    Subwoofer Setup and Parametric EQ Results *Dead Link*

  17. #67
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    That's the issue

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Well, I also think that part of the reason is that some of Telarc's mixes tend to place too much into the surround channels. Among the acoustic 5.1 mixes I have, some of the Telarc mixes are among the least impressive as far as their depth perception goes. Telarc's two-channel mixes are done to create a mid-hall audience perspective, whereas the multichannel mixes seem to create a perspective forward of the conductor's podium. I actually like Telarc's studio multichannel mixes better, since at least those are not trying to sound "real."

    Did you have a chance to hear any other source material on that system? Some of the best mixes that I have are actually the old Vox quad mixes (newly transferred to SACD). They capture the hall ambience in way that I've never heard from any two-channel system.

    And the 5.1 mixes on the SF Symphony's Mahler series are a stunning capture of the experience inside of Davies Symphony Hall (which I visit about 2-4 times a season). The two-channel mix subjectively sounds quite good in its own right, but by comparison it sounds more like an exaggeration of the live experience. I can understand someone having a preference for the two-channel mix, but knowing how the orchestra actually sounds inside Davies Hall (which does not have great acoustics), the 5.1 mix is the only way to go if you're trying to capture the live experience as authentically as possible.
    Unfortunately there are too few really well done M/C recordings. You have to believe that it's hard to create good 2 channel, judged by typical stereo recordings out there: add three more channels and it's that much harder for those lame-assed producers and engineers. But when they get it right, it really works.

    I agree about the Tilson Thomas Mahler records, at least the 1st which I own, are quite good. Another really good M/C that comes to mind is Gregiev's Shostakovich 5th & 9th on Philips 470 651-2. The stereo sound isn't outstanding but the M/C is very effective.

    The issue of listener's perspective is a big thing with me. Certainly in stereo I hate a podium perspective, give me 12th row orchestra any time. But with M/C, based on limited examples so far, I believe the podium perspective can be done enjoyably.
    ...
    Attached Images Attached Images  

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •