I heard the B&W 800d's today

[RGA]

Peter D

Soundhounds in Victoria carries the B&W Diamonds among other notables. There was a fellow I met ther who owned B&W speakers (I forget which one but probably in the CDM NT range) He re-wired all of the internal cabling with AN wires and was raving about how great it was.

When you worked for B&W did they ever experiment with different cables. I'm more than a little suspicious of cables because the only serious audition I had was with some MIT cables and they actually made the sound "worse" than the cheap speaker wires. I never argue with cable supporters because I can honestly say I heard a difference (albeit for the much worse) but I don't get why this B&W owner would wake up one day and think gee lets spend money and time having the repair guy open up the B&W's and the re-wire them with presumably silver wires from a totally different company?? He's happy so that's all that matters I guess but to me that sort of change COOULD just as easily made it worse no?

[Florian]

In my opinion some cables can improve the sound while others can/will make it worse. It's all about component synergy. In my system balanced cables from Rapport brought me the best so far, and the use of a pure silverstrand unshielded wire from the Transport to the DAC got me a tick more resolution. The differences are small, and i do not belive that someone can claim a 50% increase from cables no matter how you twist it.

Personally i do not care for B&W and think that they are far from the end in terms of detail, speed, lack of coloration and transiant responses. (See John i am learning ). I think its great that he likes his system but its a system i would never choose to own. The Diamond tweeter is much like the Kevlar drivers and the big comercials. Kevlar, space age materials and Diamond are all words that have a high status with us and it effects the judgment before hearing it on some people. Some of the best drivers i heard was from the "Wiener Lautsprecher Manufaktur" and they use coax paper drivers! But this would never sell because paper is less worth than a Diamond.

A fisher CDP with a old carver amp and some rotten socks will never touch a 20K system unless its from B&O or BOSE. A good thought out system for 20K will blow away a system costing less if the same amount of care and consideration went into the component selection. Of course, if you choose a Wilson Audio X2 and try to run them with a Onkyo TX5000 the system will be around 60K and sound like ****, but that's because no consideration and care went into it. Same goes with Apogee's and the Audio Notes. The Apogee's love current and like the sound of a good transistor on the bass with tubes on the mid high section and Audio Notes love single tube systems which can sound damn good and capture the spirit of the music very well. An Apogee will never play with that kind of component so different means are neceserry in order to reach the final goal.

A revelaing system will clearly guide you and help you on the selection of equipment. My DIVA can clearly show me the differences between cables, power filters, source electronics and amplification and room placment. Its not always better, it does not always improve but it shows me what she likes and does not like. But the DIVA never sounds harsh or unpleasant, thats not her style. The system is very well balanced and has a very good transiant response and lacks coloration. The technology has not been changed in over 30years, but B&W needs to come out with new toys in order to sell.

If you own a speaker whos only shortcomings are the driving electronics and the room plus the price than you can stop and say you have a ruthlessly revealing speaker. Otherwise just ruthless

-Flo

[John Ashman]

I'm more than a little suspicious of cables because the only serious audition I had was with some MIT cables and they actually made the sound "worse" than the cheap speaker wires.

RGA, MIT cables actually are a passive electronic circuit. However, I've found that, for B&W owners who feel their speakers are too bright, they make a very postive difference and many have adopted them. I'm not a fan of "two wrongs make a right", but sometimes you just use what works to get to where you need to be. I think Transparent cables work the very same way as the MITs and could be why Cincy finds his system to be so smooth.

[Peter Duminy]

RGA

Yes, we did extensive testing and research into cables and their properties. Many Companies around the World sent samples for us to evaluate and test. Each had their strengths and weaker points, and many were extremely expensive. We never had a real favorite we could name the "last word" in cables however.

As to opening up a product and re-wiring it, the main deterrent would be the 5 year Factory Warranty that would be voided. After that period, one can try this, and a number of enthusiasts have done so and posted their results on the Hi-Fi Choice Forum for example over the years. It can be a tedious task as some of the routes can be very narrow and awkward on some models. There is also the risk of rattling against the enclosure walls and drivers developing, so one has to be very careful in laying the cables out. As to whether such a short internal run of silver wire within the loudspeaker would be a sonic benefit is a debatable issue. Still, the main point here is that the user you mention in your post is happy with his modification.

[Cincy2]

Peter,

I've never owned any speaker cables other than Transparent. I started with B Stock dealer demo Ultras and over the years upgraded to Reference and XL (soon to Opus MM wife permitting). I found each upgrade increased transparency and reduced background noise (please no flames here fellas). I never had the urge to look elsewhere since 1) the Transparent folks are wonderful to work with, 2) their products have worked great in all my systems over the past 15 years. There are several price points of Nordost cables you could try to compare. They don't have a network as the Transparent cables do. The biggest knock against Transparent's product line is that the network rolls off the treble. I have not found this to be the case, but only you can be the judge. The Cable Company (www.fatwyre.com)carries Nordost and will loan you a set of which ever ones you want for a deposit which has to be applied to some purchase. They are also great folks to work with.


Topspeed,

The picture of the room treatments is somewhat old. I kept the rear wall diffusers and Tube traps. They control the base. On the side walls I have small Studio Traps from ASC at the first reflection points. They diffuse rather than absorb allowing me to keep some "snap" and "sizzle" in the room.

Cincy2

[Mr Peabody]

Well John, when someone stands and says a Fisher/Carver system sounds better than a Krell all you can do, is throw up your hands, as I do with you.

[Peter Duminy]

Many thanks for the cable info Cincy2.

[topspeed]

I don't usually disagree with Topper but I've heard gear that have had extravagant price tags and if I had the money I would purchase because they flat knocked my socks off. Price don't always equal performance but there isn't a plateau for performance either.

I don't think we're disagreeing, Mr. P. I didn't say there was a plateau for performance, only that there is a point of rapidly diminishing returns. Gains can be had, just on an incremental scale and on a wholly different return rate per dollar. Again, once you reach the exotic realm of equipment, ultimate performance is merely one factor in a sea of many that can influence the decision by a potential customer. Build quality, brand loyalty, ego, etc. will be just as important, if not more, once we reach audio la-la land.

[John Ashman]

I don't think we're disagreeing, Mr. P. I didn't say there was a plateau for performance, only that there is a point of rapidly diminishing returns. Gains can be had, just on an incremental scale and on a wholly different return rate per dollar. Again, once you reach the exotic realm of equipment, ultimate performance is merely one factor in a sea of many that can influence the decision by a potential customer. Build quality, brand loyalty, ego, etc. will be just as important, if not more, once we reach audio la-la land.

Actually, there is a plateau for performance. Perfection isn't a moving target. Once you get there, there's not where to go. We're not *quite* there, but most decent electronics are damned close. It's not like computers where there is no limit to performance.

[John Ashman]

Well John, when someone stands and says a Fisher/Carver system sounds better than a Krell all you can do, is throw up your hands, as I do with you.

Well, in context, it did and it wasn't close. On their own? of course not, the Krell models are better, just not *enough* better to make a good speaker outperform a great one, even with several $thousand in wire vs about $5 in wire. Sorry. It was obvious to everyone in the room which system was better and it didn't have anything starting with a "K" in it. We did upgrade the electronics a bit, if it makes you feel better.

[Pat D]

Cool, thanks!

7 huh? And I see you have 7 posts. I'll be looking forward to number 193.

Have no fear, John Ashman is pretty knowledgeable, though he does have a thing about Kevlar--something I have no opinion on, myself. I've seen his posts elsewhere. He may be new here, but . . .

[Florian]

I think we have to stop on generalizing about companys. Krell makes a few **** products too and so does Conrad Jonhnson nowadays. Just because its a Krell, that doesnt make it good. I have owned several Krells in the past, and many of my friends used to have Krell until Sphinx, Etallon and the old Conrad Johnsons came along.

I dont know if anyone read my post, but this is exactly what i meant to say. You can take that Fisher, rotten sock combo and run it against a complete missmatch Krell etc. combo and the difference will not be high enough to make it worth spending the money.

-Flo

[GMichael]

Have no fear, John Ashman is pretty knowledgeable, though he does have a thing about Kevlar--something I have no opinion on, myself. I've seen his posts elsewhere. He may be new here, but . . .

I asked John if there was a waiting list for the stuff he throws out, and if I needed to take a number. He gave me number 193 and said now serving number 7. That also happened to be his 7th post. I am looking forward to his 193rd post because I would then be next in line (implying that each post represented another customer in line).
It seemed funny at the time.

I can see that he has much more experience in high end systems than I do. Number of posts means nothing as far as knowledge goes.

[thepogue]

Number of posts means nothing as far as knowledge goes.

dang...I guess I'll just quit while I'm ahead

Pogue

[Florian]

Knowledge and money are two different things
Just look at me...HAHA..

[GMichael]

dang...I guess I'll just quit while I'm ahead

Pogue

hmmm....

2 Adcom GFA 555 mkII (Bi-Amped)
Adcom GTP 555 mkII
Martin Logan Prodigy's
Monitor Audio ASW 210 Sub
Rega Planet CD
Adcom DAC 600
Linn LP12 - Basik Plus - Valhalla
Grado Gold Cart.
Linn Black Interconnects
Monster M2.2 speaker cable
Tripplite Isobar Line Stabilizers/Surge Protectors x 2
Nitty Gritty 2.5 Fi

hmmm...

Me thinks you already know more than I.....

[Florian]

Knowledge and money are two different things
Just look at me...HAHA..

[thepogue]

used used used....cheap cheap cheap......happy happy happy

Pogue

hmmm....

2 Adcom GFA 555 mkII (Bi-Amped)
Adcom GTP 555 mkII
Martin Logan Prodigy's
Monitor Audio ASW 210 Sub
Rega Planet CD
Adcom DAC 600
Linn LP12 - Basik Plus - Valhalla
Grado Gold Cart.
Linn Black Interconnects
Monster M2.2 speaker cable
Tripplite Isobar Line Stabilizers/Surge Protectors x 2
Nitty Gritty 2.5 Fi

hmmm...

Me thinks you already know more than I.....

[Florian]

used used used....cheap cheap cheap......happy happy happy

Pogue

Same here, altough the speakers were serious money.

[Mr Peabody]

I also have Transparent throughout my system but I only have the entry and next level up. I compared Transparent to an equivalently priced Audioquest and preferred the Transparent. The Audioquest was good but I just liked the sound of the Transparent better. Other than that, I haven't done any other A/B comparisons, like Cincy I've just been happy with the Transparent. I really heard a significant improvement when upgrading to their power cords. I didn't like the effect the other Transparent power conditioners had on my system, so for now I'm just plugged into the wall. I've thought about upgrading my wall sockets to PS Audio.

I have not experienced any high frequency roll off at all when using Transparent. In fact, I thought the highs improved. If anything I'd be suspect of filtering the lows because when using Transparent my bass was cleaner and tighter. The networks aren't supposed to effect or alter the signal, it's supposed to help maintain it's original integrity by cancelling out the antenna and RF effects of lengths of wire. MIT was the originator of this technology and some former employees broke away and formed Transparent. I have no idea why they split or if Transparent is better than MIT. It seems that Transparent is getting more of a market share but that could be different in other parts of the States or World. I also have heard that brands of cables sound different, as much as another component, so it may be trial and error to reach the perfect system synergy.

[topspeed]

Actually, there is a plateau for performance. Perfection isn't a moving target. Once you get there, there's not where to go. We're not *quite* there, but most decent electronics are damned close. It's not like computers where there is no limit to performance.

I respectfully disagree.

Whereas the differences in front end pieces may be diminishing, I'm a big believer in system integration. IOW, you have to consider how each piece in the chain is going to interact with everything else for ultimate performance. You can take a terrific piece of gear, say that Krell cdp, and drop it in the wrong rig and simply not receive its full measure. However, the definition of "ultimate performance" will vary from each individual based on their wants and needs.

Audio is completely subjective, therefore the target moves from person to person, rig to rig.

[John Ashman]

I agree. My saying for people who want maximum performance for the money is to buy the very best speakers they can afford and then buy the least expensive gear that does them justice. Sure, a $10K preamp/amp might do them justice, but so might a $2K integrated. And if that $8K went towards better speakers? Yikes.

Audio is completely subjective, therefore the target moves from person to person, rig to rig.[/QUOTE]

This is the point with which I disagree. It is NOT just subjective, otherwise, we're going around in circles and getting nowhere. Objectivity is the guide post we need to get somewhere. While many companies build to taste, the companies that are objectively moving forward, IMO, are *also* subjectively moving forward and making a *real* difference in quality as opposed to a perceived one. This is why I disagree with how many companies build speakers - they're doing it to impress people, not to be more transparent, just as TVs have been notoriously tuned "hot" for decades to get people in the showroom and to hell with whether they get long term enjoyment. Most speaker companies just cater to their following and that's it. If they cared about furthering the perfomance, they'd abandon most of their design elements.

[topspeed]

I agree. My saying for people who want maximum performance for the money is to buy the very best speakers they can afford and then buy the least expensive gear that does them justice. Sure, a $10K preamp/amp might do them justice, but so might a $2K integrated. And if that $8K went towards better speakers? Yikes.

I'm a back end guy myself.

No...wait...that didn't come out right .

Without question, the speakers and room acoustics will have the biggest effect on perceived sound. I agree wholeheartedly with your strategy.

This is the point with which I disagree. It is NOT just subjective, otherwise, we're going around in circles and getting nowhere. Objectivity is the guide post we need to get somewhere.

It will never happen. Every designer has specific ideas on how they want their speakers to sound. Von Schweikert uses a sota playback system when voicing his speakers to make them as close to "live" as possible. Likewise, ATC engineer their speakers to be ruler flat and as faithful to the original as possible. Both have the same objective goal yet play the two side by side and they couldn't sound more different.

While many companies build to taste, the companies that are objectively moving forward, IMO, are *also* subjectively moving forward and making a *real* difference in quality as opposed to a perceived one.

Agreed. This is why you see diamond and beryllium(sp?) tweeters.

This is why I disagree with how many companies build speakers - they're doing it to impress people, not to be more transparent

You lost me on this thought.

Most speaker companies just cater to their following and that's it. If they cared about furthering the perfomance, they'd abandon most of their design elements.

Well, I doubt you'll find any mission statement on the planet with a goal to "alienate the existing client base." If a company has a house sound and it's successful, naturally they will want to stay within the same parameters. Therefore, every company is somewhat restricted by market demands. Let's remember they are here to make a profit. When B&W gave their engineers free rein, unfettered by market demands or profitability requirements, they came up with the Nautilus, a speaker unlike anything else in their line. Infinity did the same thing with the IRS. Statement pieces that truly push the sota are wonderfull, but rarely profitable.

[dean_martin]

Performance oriented brands are generally more expensive than the value brands, less expensive than the prestige brands, but eschew glamour and style to pursue high-end sound at a reasonable price by avoiding compromise and engaging in sensible, pragmatic design. Unfortunately, performance oriented brands are few and far between.

John - are you at liberty to name-drop? How about identifying some "performance oriented brands". Depending on economic circumstances at the relevant time, I simply can't or won't spend the money on those prestige brands, but I can't stand the bargain stuff.

[RGA]

Dean Martin

Beware

John Ashman is an NHT Salesman. So expect the sales pitch for the XD system.