I heard the B&W 800d's today

[John Ashman]

John, I take issue with what you said about "revealing" speakers being harsh or too bright. I know from another thread that we sometimes have different meanings in our minds of adjectives used to describe audio sound but I don't think many would agree with yours. I proudly describe my Dyn's as being revealing and they are not harsh or too bright UNLESS that is the signature, or fault of the electronics. A speaker's job is too be honest and if your equipment sounds like crap therefore your speakers should show you that.

Well, look, I've been in this industry a long time and I can tell you that many people who say "oh, my speaker is just extremely revealing" then upgrade and say "oh, yeah, the old speakers were a bit harsh, but the NEW versions......." I had a guy tell me just the other day how harsh the B&W Nautilus tweeter was compared to the Diamond tweeter and I said "you know, just a few years ago, you stood right over there and told me that the N tweeter was the finest tweeter you'd ever heard" and he said "I did not!" And I said "Oh, yes, you did, I remember it like it was yesterday, but now that it's discontinued, it's crap?" This year's "revealing" is next year's "bright". That's why I understand this subject so well. Now, the Dynaudios? I don't know. The one's I've heard 10 years ago were clearly a tad on the warm side. However, I've heard from many people that the new ones *are* bright. I've not heard one comment to the contrary, the good ones are, as you say, "revealing". But that's okay. As Cincy says, it's all personal taste. One person's bright is another person's dull. No speaker is perfect. All have distortion elements. Some of those add "sizzle" to the sound. Others fatigue. The same element that makes one person excited might put another off. However, I have a rule. If half the people say "revealing" and the other half say "bright", it's bright. I've rarely heard a speaker that is described as "warm" also be described as revealing. Those that are, are often 1st order designs that get brighter and harsher as the volume goes up. Anyway, I could go on a LONG involved rampage on this subject, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

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 also firmly believe if you don't have a decent source you are wasting your money on the the rest of the system. If those of you who feel the speakers is where the money should go and that makes your system, why aren't you still listening to cassettes? I mean your system should be reasonably matched, not lopsided to either front or back end, but you should put more emphasis on the source.

I totally disagree with this. Given any price point, I can reliably produce better sound by "backloading" the system vs another store that "frontloads" it. I have two main competitors who demo frontloaded $50K+ systems and I regularly steal their sales with my backloaded $7K system. I once set up a system that used zip cord for wires, a Fisher CD player, a Carver preamp, cheapy "included" patch cables and killed a brand new $25K system with it by attaching better speakers and stole the sale. If there were a competition for best sound, I'd always take a backloaded system.

But I can respect his choice because I'm sure he didn't buy the only pair and if we all liked the same thing there wouldn't be a billion companies out there chasing the same dollar.

As can I. It's obviously a nice setup and he's happy and if 801Ds can sound great, I'll bet those do. I was needlessly hard on him and for that I apologize. My only thing is that all speakers are flawed compared to electronics. And so we have to live with those flaws (just like living with a good woman - they still have flaws). I believe that it is a good mental and emotional thing (as well as money saving) to recognize this and be able to say "yeah, they might be a tad ______ for some, but I like that" or whatever. I have a good customer that loves his B&Ws exactly because they're bright to him and he likes that. I can tell you what's "wrong" with every speaker I sell. I sometimes joke that there's no such thing as a "great sounding" speaker, only "less bad sounding" ones. Not a good sales pitch though

[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.

[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.

[Mr Peabody]

John, all I can say is that you must be a good salesman because no matter how you back end your system it won't reproduce what isn't there in the first place. Your system would be totally limited by the Fisher cd player and no matter how you might try to convince me or some one there's no way that Fisher will give the information or performance of a Krell, Arcam or similar quality cd player. I was in a repair shop several years ago and the tech used a cheap pair of Kenwood speakers on the bench, he through an old McIntosh tube amp on them and I was amazed at how good those old speakers sounded. I can't remember the source. That was one of the first examples that stuck in my mind even though the amp wasn't the source it still made more of a difference than putting a high end pair of speakers on his test receiver. I guess we will agree to disagree because I am absolutely convinced that front end loading will yield higher quality sound overall.

As far as new series that come out, I tend to, wait and see, if it's actually offering anything better than the older series. Typically on higher end gear the change is warranted where mass merchants have to keep the faces changing to excite new business from foolish consumers like the one you described.

[John Ashman]

John, all I can say is that you must be a good salesman because no matter how you back end your system it won't reproduce what isn't there in the first place. Your system would be totally limited by the Fisher cd player and no matter how you might try to convince me or some one there's no way that Fisher will give the information or performance of a Krell, Arcam or similar quality cd player.

Well, let's put it this way, the difference was so amazing that even my competitor's employee finally just threw his hands up and left. In this case, yes, there was $20K worth of Krell CD/Pre/Amp and exotic cable vs old, beat up, crappy electronics, that I would argue suck, driving a better speaker and the better speaker won. Pick your "dream" system at any price point and I'll gladly come over and spank it with a backloaded system. Which has nothing to do with my capabilities or anything, just the reality that speakers/room/setup is more than 90% of the battle. Yes, in this case, a CRAP Fisher CD player beat out a Krell CD player that cost 20 times as much.

I guess we will agree to disagree because I am absolutely convinced that front end loading will yield higher quality sound overall.

Yes, but I can actually prove I'm right

[Peter Duminy]

Cincy2, may I ask how you like the Transparent Reference XL speaker cables and Interconnects with the 800Ds? Have you tried any other combinations of cables with them?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Mr Peabody]

Topper, what you are describing I refer to as system Synergy. That is a real consideration and sometimes obstacle if it's not there. When I bought my first Krell integrated I already had an Arcam Alpha 9 cdp, it was apparent that the player had better synergy with my old amp so I eventually traded it up to a Krell cdp which made the system fall into place. I've played with other cd players and I think a lot of the synergy with Krell is due to the balanced circuits and inputs. Even without the synergy I could tell the Krell amp killed the one I was using.

BUT, no amount of synergy or lack there of will make a $2 or 300.00 Fisher cd player out perform a Krell of any price. That's a ridiculus statement for anyone to make, especially one claiming to have audio experience.

[Mr Peabody]

I like to bring some of my own discs because that's what I'm familiar with and one needs a point of reference. Nothing shows off the difference in a component like putting it your own system though.

I brought the Sheffield Labs James Newton Howard & Friends to a store one time and heard it played on a Rotel system. That's what formed my opinion of Rotel, finding them laid back and sluggish sounding. Anyone familiar with this disc should realize it is quite snappy and dynamic. So sometimes it is helpful to have your own point of reference. The salesman suggested that my equipment may have scued my opinion, that my gear was too fast. This CD was used by IASCA as a reference in car audio contests and used as a demo by many of my friends who are in audio sales and I'm reasonably sure this recording is snappy and dynamic.

I can also remember being in the shoes of the guy RGA described, the first time I walked into a truely high end audio store with my Great White CD and had the guy play it through a Krell system driving a $25k pair of Dynaudio speakers I remember thinking "where's the mid-bass, this isn't so great" and then the guy put the Paula Cole CD in, which I hadn't heard before, and the first track had some incredible low end, and my jaw dropped in amazement. I felt like an earthquake hit the building.

Flo- you and I must have totally different characteristics we listen for, you dislike 2 of my favorite brands, Dynaudio and Martin Logan.

[Mr Peabody]

Did you see on my DAC thread I picked up an Audio Note 1.1x? It hasn't arrived yet. Once I've listened enough to form an opinion I will probably start a new thread with my review. I am really anxious to hear it, they have some interesting trademark techniques in their DAC's.

[Florian]

Should be interesting, Krell and AN is about as much of a difference as AN and Apogee.
Keep us posted ;-)

[RGA]

Did you see on my DAC thread I picked up an Audio Note 1.1x? It hasn't arrived yet. Once I've listened enough to form an opinion I will probably start a new thread with my review. I am really anxious to hear it, they have some interesting trademark techniques in their DAC's.

It will be interesting how the DAC does in such a very dissimilar voiced set-up.

[Mr Peabody]

I have the Audio Note 1.1x in my system. This was a demo unit and when I received it the guy forgot to send me a BNC to RCA adaptor for the digital input. Talking about an excitement killer. By the time I hooked it up and noticed it was too late to go out and find one. I'm using a Radio Shack Gold until the one shipped arrives. I'm also using Transparent cables off other gear until I decide if I want to stick with them.

Anyway first impressions, I like it. It's the first digital source with RCA hook ups that gave the Krell's XLR balanced a run for it's money. First let me say in other comparisons I've done to the Krell I firmly decided the 280cd is a great sounding unit and even at retail of $3,250.00 a good value. With that being said, comparing it to the 1.1x makes the 280cd sound sort of glaring. The 1.1x has a very nice high end that decays even slower than the Krell. I like the 280cd better for drums and it makes things sound somewhat larger than the 1.1x. The 280cd has more impact and gives things a harder sound where the 1.1x conveys a softer presentation without sounding artificial, sluggish or valed. The 1.1x also seems to give music more of a groove or sense of rhythym. The 1.1x is not as euphoric or fleshy as I was hoping but that may be due to running it through solid state pre and power amp and different brand cables may make a difference. But I don't plan to experiment much with cables unless I can find some loaners. Both DACs seem to be equal as far as revealing information off the disc. They have different presentations but I haven't heard anything from a disc that the other unit didn't show as well. If I had to choose only one I'm actually leaning toward the Audio Note. This unit has been described to me as "organic" which didn't mean anything to me but when you hear the unit you understand. It sounds so good I think I could for go the strenghs the 280cd brings to the table for the strenths of the 1.1x. The 1.1x is far from sounding digital yet it does not have any of the stereotype tube weaknesses, the highs are not rolled off, the bass is not as tight and forceful as Krell but it's not mushy or tubby either. It would be interesting to see if the bass integrity was as good through a tube amp. The 1.1x is a very nice piece. I'd love the hear their better DAC's and even some of their gear but once you are used to 250 wpc of Krell power I know a single ended amp isn't going to cut it with me. If I ever got serious to convert my system I'd have to look at some larger powered tube models.

RGA, you should drop one of the 1.1x into your system. For some one who seems to be able to hear the difference in gear I'm surprised you don't have a better digital source. Trust me when I tell you there is a difference in the sound of cdp or DAC's. Cambridge is no slouch but they are not in the league with AN.

[RGA]

Mr. Peabody -- You know I have been highly impressed with PMC and Bryston match-ups...we live in a world where there is so much choice little time to simply just relax and enjoy something. In an ideal world I'd like the an all AN system and perhaps two or three other systems in 2-3 other rooms just to have a different flavour - my favorite ice-cream is chocolate chip mint but I don't want it ALL the time.

You wanted the tube dac for a specific purpose and hopefully it does what you want and makes you happy - seems so far you're pleased. And after being in tirade arguments here over the last two days or so the reality is that the only person you need to answer to is yourself. You don't need to try an AN set-up because you like what you have - why? The AN speakers are not efficient enough with their SET amps to be able provide the "impact" of some systems. If you love impact then there are many out there and you probably already have it. This is RGA attempting to be objective in an overall sense. I would not mind hearing a HF version of their speaker and one of their upper scale amplifiers.

Perhaps if you get a chance to hear one view it more as a medium room system at relaxing levels -- or a bedroom set-up on music that does not require "slam" but intimite kind of stuff. I think You'll be surprised at the power transfer and their ability to Rock -- but they are not going to compete I don;t think with a big PMC with 250watt monoblocks -- I personally left those truly stupifying deafening levels behind years ago. I think Constantine Soo also noted that with the AN set-up compared to his big mondo Gensis IV that the AN presented Metallica in a "philisophical" way. I say the same with Motley Crue that my AN system is less grungy sounding clearer and a little more exacting -- but for this kind of music it almost helps it to have a bit of grunge added and it sounds more fun on my Wharfedales which will hit 119db.

Do you mind me asking how much a Dac 1.1 goes for? is it the Dac 1.1X MkII that was released recently -- apparently the new ones don't even have an analog filter.

"I'm surprised you don't have a better digital source."

Tell me about it but there is only so much money. I think I'm doing pretty well for a guy who has not worked since 2000 and has been going to school the whole time. I live frugal to be able to get where I am. I never planned to buy any Gear but I could not pass up the deal on the speakers even though I had to take black. And the amp I had trade ins that could get it affordable enough (I could not trade for a source because the trade in would have left me with no amp). So it's sort of being in the right place at the right time.

Sorry for the length. If you ever do get an opportunity you may be surprised that their speaker amp cd system is anything but a sterotypical tube sound -- it probably won;t have the impact I suspect you love but it won;t sound warm and mushy or veiled I can gaurantee you of that. And apparently each kind of tube design brings different perspectives to the table -- some like AN's 300b some don;t and prefer the 2a3 design while more amazingly some like my OTO's EL 84 over the more expensive 300b Meishu. Some find the Meishu presnets a more organic full bodied sound but it's a little slower on the uptake so it suits small scale intimate music best but not as good on large scale stuff. All of which is part of the fun aspect associated with the tube world. I'm not enough of a gear head to get into that I don't think.

Anyway I'm quite surprised to tell you the truth that the AN would work with the Krell's so well -- though Bob Neil mentioned that the DACs travel across brands better while the amp and speakers are generally suited for each other.

I have a fellow who is willing to sell me his 1.1x MK II because he wants a 2.1 badly.

I NEED A JOB --- LOL

[Mr Peabody]

Go to www.triodeandco.com to see Audio Note pricing. The 1.1x MkII which I have retails at $1,500.00 U.S. I got lucky and found a demo at a good price is the reason I was able to buy that high end on a non-essential purchase. If you could get that one from your friend it would really round your system out.

I could probably do without some of the slam but I'd still need an amp to drive my Dyn's. Some day I might entertain going to separates and using a tube preamp with a SS power amp.

[Florian]

Hey Mr.P

thos tube and SS combination can sound very good. Personally i had a Jolida/Krell combination which worked and sounded very good. Some tube preamps pass DC so you have to watch out for that. My friend here runs A Jadis JP80 into a active crossover and uses the Conrad Johnson Premier 5 Monoblocks on the mid/hi and the Krell KSA250's BE on the bass. Wonderfull combination!

-Flo