Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 169
  1. #76
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "How does Krell, which you recommended way back, do to justify their price in a world where SS "SHOULD BE" dirt cheap. $80,000.US for two monoblock power amplifiers?"

    I don't ever recall recommending Krell. IMO, there is no justification for a pricetag of $80,000 for a pair of Krell monoblock amplfiers. There is no justification for even $8000.

    You parrot back Peter Qtwerp's line very well but you are both very wrong about low efficiency loudspeakers. AR3, probably the archetype acoustic suspension loudspeaker was among the least efficient speakers of its day requiring a whopping 25 watts RMS per channel and having a rated maximum capacity of 100. That was a lot in the early to mid 1960s. It was extremely well constructed of very good materials for their day as were products from KLH.

    I don't know much about the Asian market but I would find it hard to belive that Panasonic, Sony, Kenwood, Pioneer, Teac, Toshiba, Nakamichi, Yamaha, Denon, didn't fill that market with ss products as successfully as they filled the American market. It is dangerous to generalize about America being a "throw-away" society. Just look at how much vintage equipment is still available on e-bay for instance that wasn't thrown away and how much more is likely still out there being used. Some of them are considered gems and are highly prized like old McIntosh and Marantz equipment.

    High wattage amps came out because the market wanted them and they could be made at reasonable cost using transistors. The first on the consumer market was the Crown DC300 with Phase Linear 400 and 700 following shortly. There was a horsepower race of sorts in the 1970s and McIntosh and Marantz entered the fray as well.

    The fiberglass in acoustic suspension loudspeakers is used to damp the speaker. Damping is a fundimental part of tuning the speaker/enclosure combination to avoid spurious resonances and is an inherent part of Newton's second law of motion. If you design speaker systems, you neglect it at your own peril. It is hard if not impossible to say much about Peter Qtwerps speakers or any of his other products for that matter except that they seem expensive and it doesn't appear that much goes into them. He doesn't tell you much about the design and there aren't many places to go hear them, certainly not near where I live and I'm not going out of my way to get to one of the few places that they are demonstrated.

    It's always suspicious when someone comes here with the line that only one guy has a corner on everything that is good and everything different from his meaning everything else is awful. By your reckoning, the more than 99% of audiophiles who don't have any AN equipment all have terrible equipment that isn't worth listening to. I'm sure most people find this line hard to swallow. I know I do.

  2. #77
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I don't think I'd have a problem successfully building any well designed audio kit. I could probably reverse engineer it as well and build my own unless the manufacturer has used custom made parts to preclude just such a possibility.

    New designs usually come about because of the inadequacies of the old designs. There are exceptions such as special audiophile wire where some clever marketers saw a naive sucker market with delusions of sophistication to cynically exploit. As I said in my previous posting, class AB came about because class A couldn't deliver enough power, negative feedback came about because distortion of non feedback amplifiers was too high, frequency response too limited, and stable operation inadequate. Transistors came about because tubes were too hot, too inefficient, and too unreliable. Whether the advantages of these ideas have sufficient merit to offset the claimed disadvantages by their detractors is for the consumer to decide. I have said that it is up to the innovator to prove the worth of his new products to the satisfaction of his technical peers. Inventors of these innovations have proven their superiority in the areas claimed over the decades again and again. Now it is up to those who challenge them by saying that there is too heavy a price to pay for these advantages to prove their point, not in advertising copy or in the testimonials of customers, advertisers, and reviewers whose employers get paid to advertise the same products they review but by scientifically demonstrating their superiority to the satisfaction of other scientists and engineers. If this is possible, it takes real research to accomplish it, not tinkering. Yes, scientific documentation of superiority is one of the things I look for under the hood. If a 10 or 25 watt per channel amplfier is going to cost a few thousand dollars, there had better be more to recommend it than just the fact that it sounds better to some people under some circumstances. I expect a lot more for my money.

    Jack Elliano who was literally a rocket scientist throughout most of his carreer has introduced a number of new SET designs that you might want to take a look at. He owns elektraprint and invented the DRD ultrapath design. Here's a link to an article on his amps by enjoythemusic's Bill Gaw:

    billgaw_on_DRD_amp


    I've heard a 300B and a modified 2A3 version of his amps from a friend who got to visit his research Lab in Las Vegas. Guess what speakers i've heard them best matched with? An audio note AN-E/SPe

  3. #78
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    He may have been a rocket scientist in his day job, but his amplifier is still a minor variant of the primitive SET design. Oh his big claim to fame is inserting a capacitor between the low side of the primiary output transformer winding and the cathode. That and a direct coupling between the plate output of the driver tube and the control grid of the output tube. Big deal.

    By the way, the review stinks. He lost me in the first few sentences with his extoling his new power conditioner and his power cord that are finally broken in. No measurements of course. Just a lot of bull. As I said, they don't really like to show you what's under the hood and as far a this reveiwer is concerned, I don't think he would know what he was looking at anyway. BTW, a directly heated cathode goes back to the most primitive form. Better have a rock steady power supply or there will be hum and noise.

    "If I didn't already have the specialty power cords, I'd probably be able to do without. Thus the $5,000 charge for the twelve outlet unit may actually be a bargain, considering you may be able to do without twelve super high-end power cords at $1,000-$6,000 each."

    give me a break.

    Hey, remember my earlier posting about how primitive SET amps are? Here's your guru's opinion. I'm sure AN's amp fits into here somewhere.

    "Just about every different type of tube circuit, especially the SET ones, were first developed in the 30's, with the last being probably the Williamson push pull circuit from the late 40's. Every tube amp development since has been variations on these prehistoric configurations, just using different configurations and quality of resistors, capacitors, inductors, transformers, etc., to adjust the sound. Each new change is considered an advancement by the maker, but is usually just a variation of a theme."

    Well, maybe he does know something about tube amplifiers after all.

  4. #79
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I am not saying one needs to buy an Audio Note to get good music - nor am I saying they're the best - They happen to be the best I've heard since 1992 when I started to pay attention to audio - but the list of what I have not heard is extremely long. Looking over older designs by Acoustic Research many of their speakers look to be very similar to the original Snell designs - wide baffles highish sensitivity - two way designs with good bass.

    The only difference I see is that AR gave up using quality materials and cabinetry and went to making a pile of crap like most others and are now a "nothing" company on the world stage - AN continued to improve and improve what was already the basis of great music makers to make them the best they possibly can - and obviously when peole listen to them without letting sight be a bias in the blind panels of hi-fi choice people are still selecting these over this weeks $5,000.00 models.

    The Snell B-Minor is a total disaster and is obviously based off the AR 9 and if the new AR's were better you would have them - but you're sticking to the AR9 of old. Why? Surely in 20+ years they've improved speakers - uhh no - and if they tried to build a $2k model from them using quality woods instead of particle board or plastic you'd pay $10k+ today for it. I don;t blame AR for cheaping out - it's a business for "most" first and foremost.

    It is really quite simple - they're 60 year old cabinets and good quality materials are beating the ever loving crap out of the brand spanking new - advertise the crap out of it - change every 4 years Harman international models which sell for as much or more money. The can claim every technical thing they wish with their NRC blind tests and white papers - but in the end when I went out to listen none of that helped Harman or B&W - and independant blind auditions Hi-fi choice isn't backing those claims up either(Certain models perhaps). It's just marketing spin alla Bose.

    UHF made the statement that in the late 70s early 80s 25 watts was considered a beast of an amp. The idea of low efficiency was to gain bass depth - but the E or the J or even to a degree the K is proof that that that is total BS.

    The only reason to NEED more power is bad speaker design - Higher efficient speakers ALWAYS sound more dynamic more lifelike than something like the Totem Model 1 and virtually ALL slim line design speakers. While these do have certain sonic advantages - music isn;t one of them.

    Looking at the overall picture of the AR 9 I seriously doubt you would think much of the Paradigm Studio 100 or its ilk -- all of which are supposedly superior technological advancements and will have a stream of engineers will tell you this new "truth." It's all true of course until you catually play some music on them and realize the "emperor has no clothes"

    As for SET versus SS I can't comment because i've not heard enough of the former to make a general comment and have really only heard SET with spekaers built for SET. Though the Meishu handled the B&W N805 with ample aplomb.

    I understand full well your skepticism because Peter says he's right and everyone else is wrong - well which companies state don't imply that? Magnepan Quad, B&W, Harman all imply the same thing and it's not true for any of them including Mr. Qvortrup. It's only true to the person listening. If I picked Magnepan then I would be like the person on here who says Magnepan is the only company that can pass the Live test recreating instruments the only true way. He obviously hears it differently than me. On another forum if it isn't an electrostat then it's unlsitenable - Fair enough - you think Classical is the only thing worth listening to and that a speaker needs to be some sort of omnidirectional or multidirexctional to be any good - so no front firing system can possibly be acceptable to you regardless of design or price.

    It's called a preference.

    Disposable society does not apply to 70's North America but to current North America. People used to shop for things like service and quality - two things Future Shop Best Buy and Wall Mart know nothing about and sell to consumers who are only about price. This explaoins buying speakers over the internet unheard - these people don;t really CARE about what it sounds like - they read reviews and can get a "Deal."

    They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Value is how good it sounds -that is the only point of a stereo system. If one speaker puts $900.00 worth of materials etc into his $1000.00 retail speakers while Audio Note puts $400.00 into their $1000.00 speakers knowing this means the first is better - but if the latter sounds ten times better - it's the one I'm buying. The former I view as an idiot for not getting way more out of their speaker. Plus if something goes wrong with the former it will cost way more to repair - all that for worse sound - no thanks.

  5. #80
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I found a small essay on the history of the 300B and Single Ended amplifiers in the US. Some of this goes to what I was saying about why there are big power amps today offerring no real gain in music reproduction:

    http://www.republika.pl/mparvi/300b.htm

  6. #81
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    It is really quite simple - they're 60 year old cabinets and good quality materials are beating the ever loving crap out of the brand spanking new - advertise the crap out of it - change every 4 years Harman international models which sell for as much or more money. The can claim every technical thing they wish with their NRC blind tests and white papers - but in the end when I went out to listen none of that helped Harman or B&W - and independant blind auditions Hi-fi choice isn't backing those claims up either(Certain models perhaps). It's just marketing spin alla Bose.
    And which "brandspankingnewadvertisethecrapoutofitchangeevery 4yearsharmaninternationalmodelwhichsellfor asmuchormoremoney" models have you actually compared to these "60yearoldcabinetsandgoodqualitymaterials" speakers that you are speaking of? Blind tests and white papers are just marketing spin alla Bose? And how does Hi-Fi Choice contradict what's written in those white papers? Better question, have you ever READ the Harman white papers? Your generalization is so full of holes, presumptions, and wishful thinking, it borders on delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    UHF made the statement that in the late 70s early 80s 25 watts was considered a beast of an amp. The idea of low efficiency was to gain bass depth - but the E or the J or even to a degree the K is proof that that that is total BS.
    That assertion is BS. The wattage wars between different amp manufacturers was in high gear by the late-70s. 25 watts at that time would have been well below average for a typical mid-fi receiver. And those output ratings for that era were very conservative because by then the FTC had cracked down on the fallacious and "creative" output ratings that various manufacturers were quoting by the late-60s.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The only reason to NEED more power is bad speaker design - Higher efficient speakers ALWAYS sound more dynamic more lifelike than something like the Totem Model 1 and virtually ALL slim line design speakers. While these do have certain sonic advantages - music isn;t one of them.
    And I suppose that all those panel speakers that practically need a dedicated circuit to drive to moderately to high volumes are just as poorly designed as those slim line speakers that you love to hate?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Looking at the overall picture of the AR 9 I seriously doubt you would think much of the Paradigm Studio 100 or its ilk -- all of which are supposedly superior technological advancements and will have a stream of engineers will tell you this new "truth." It's all true of course until you catually play some music on them and realize the "emperor has no clothes"
    Hmmm, the "emperor has no clothes"? I get it. Technology is bad. Music is not technology. Therefore speakers with no technology are good. Nice logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    It's called a preference.

    Disposable society does not apply to 70's North America but to current North America. People used to shop for things like service and quality - two things Future Shop Best Buy and Wall Mart know nothing about and sell to consumers who are only about price. This explaoins buying speakers over the internet unheard - these people don;t really CARE about what it sounds like - they read reviews and can get a "Deal."
    For someone who didn't even follow audio until the early-90s, you sure know a lot about how people lived and shopped in the 70s. Let me clue you in something that you may not be aware of. People in ANY era are going to look for the best product for the best price within their budget range. I don't know where you get this twisted idea that service and quality were things that people were more willing to pay for back then than they are now. People were just as cheap back then as they are now. It's just that back then fewer of them could afford anything beyond a basic record changer or portable cassette player.

    The thing about Future Shop, Best Buy, and all those low priced products that they sell ... guess what, the majority of people back in the 70s would have paid the same amount (inflation adjusted) for audio equipment. But, instead of getting a receiver or HTIB system for a low price like they can today, they would have settled for a boombox or an all-in-one system (complete with BSR record changer and 8-track player). In inflation-adjusted terms, the performance that a consumer can get right now in those entry level categories is FAR greater than anything that was available at that time.

    The first record player my family got cost $50 in 1972. The thing was a GE folddown record changer with detachable speakers, it sounded like crap, and the tonearm had such poor tracking that we needed to tape a penny to the headshell. At an inflation-adjusted rate of $225, you means to tell me that a CD mini system that sells that that price today sounds worse than that $50 record changer from 1972? The lowest priced stereo boomboxes in the late-70s almost all cost more than $100. Inflation adjusted, that would now cost about $260. I doubt that even you would find fault in a $260 mini system of today in a direct comparison with that boombox from 1979. If you're talking about price and value, yeah EVERYTHING in the 70s was about quality and service. What bull****.

    And your generalization about internet speakers is equally ridiculous. People who buy things factory direct over the internet are looking for the best performance for the best price. What makes you think that they DON'T care about the sound quality? They're trying to get a higher level of performance than what they typically see at their price point. THAT'S why they go the mail order route. I went with a mail order subwoofer because the performance and design that I was looking for WAS NOT available at my price point with the retail options that I was looking at. The fact that an option was available through an internet direct company was worth trying. And as it stands, my bass setup far exceeds anything else I've heard in this price range.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Value is how good it sounds -that is the only point of a stereo system. If one speaker puts $900.00 worth of materials etc into his $1000.00 retail speakers while Audio Note puts $400.00 into their $1000.00 speakers knowing this means the first is better - but if the latter sounds ten times better - it's the one I'm buying. The former I view as an idiot for not getting way more out of their speaker. Plus if something goes wrong with the former it will cost way more to repair - all that for worse sound - no thanks.
    Once again, you're making wild accusations about people's motivations and what they are looking for when they buy things. Value is a personal judgment. Something that you view as low value, might have higher value to someone else because that particular product meets THEIR needs. And those two-channel only Audio Note systems that you might think are the best things ever, have no value to me because if something cannot do multichannel, it's irrelevant to my purposes.

    And, you're making baseless guesses about the material costs and profits and business models, etc. Can you even think of any real world examples that fit that hypothetical scenario that you're painting out? Stick to what you know. If you claim to know what an idiot is thinking, then the last thing you want to do on this board is leave yourself open to questioning about why you have such a strong grasp on that perspective.

  7. #82
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    He may have been a rocket scientist in his day job, but his amplifier is still a minor variant of the primitive SET design. Oh his big claim to fame is inserting a capacitor between the low side of the primiary output transformer winding and the cathode. That and a direct coupling between the plate output of the driver tube and the control grid of the output tube. Big deal.
    Wow BIG WORDS from you man. so what's your claim to fame? the tone of your language seems to me YOU have made the biggest contribution to audio design in history. have you even tried listening to this amp? what then is good value to you? can you give an example of an amp you really like so we can get to listen to them. who knows? I might have a friend who has them lying around gathering dust somewhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    By the way, the review stinks. He lost me in the first few sentences with his extoling his new power conditioner and his power cord that are finally broken in. No measurements of course. Just a lot of bull. As I said, they don't really like to show you what's under the hood and as far a this reveiwer is concerned, I don't think he would know what he was looking at anyway. BTW, a directly heated cathode goes back to the most primitive form. Better have a rock steady power supply or there will be hum and noise.

    "If I didn't already have the specialty power cords, I'd probably be able to do without. Thus the $5,000 charge for the twelve outlet unit may actually be a bargain, considering you may be able to do without twelve super high-end power cords at $1,000-$6,000 each."

    give me a break.
    i don't agree with that part on power cords either. hum you say? again, its obvious you haven't heard any of Jack's amp before.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Hey, remember my earlier posting about how primitive SET amps are? Here's your guru's opinion. I'm sure AN's amp fits into here somewhere.

    "Just about every different type of tube circuit, especially the SET ones, were first developed in the 30's, with the last being probably the Williamson push pull circuit from the late 40's. Every tube amp development since has been variations on these prehistoric configurations, just using different configurations and quality of resistors, capacitors, inductors, transformers, etc., to adjust the sound. Each new change is considered an advancement by the maker, but is usually just a variation of a theme."

    Well, maybe he does know something about tube amplifiers after all.
    believe me: using better configurations, quality resistors, capacitors, inductors, transformers do affect the sound. each may have a small contribution which when all added up make a lot of difference. the WHOLE does become greater than the SUM of the parts. again, this is all just based on listening experience.

  8. #83
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    436
    This is genuinely the worst thing about internet forums. Too much talk, not enough listening. If you guys like your technologically superior transistor amps, well that's fine. Why is it important if I like it? If you like the classic valve amps, thats cool too. What does that matter to me. Maybe transistors are superior; maybe valve amps are. It's all about perception. It's all relative - not absolute. Not that I care too much if you like either type anyways as long as you dont extend your arm into trying to influence me into liking exactly what you like.
    Woochiefer's point about value being subjective is well taken. If that holds at least some truth, then it should hold true to everything. As I have said before. Who cares if you like expensive cables? Who cares if you like CD over vinyl? Who cares about any of other peoples business? It don't bother me.
    Don't get me wrong. Discussing is cool. Expansion of knowledge is great. But if it isnt asked, then it dont need to be answered. Everyone has their own passion. RGA loves Audio Note, as do I. Skeptic doesnt like tubes. But RGA seems to like them. Not that it bothers me.

    Should it bother you?

  9. #84
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    "The only reason to NEED more power is bad speaker design - Higher efficient speakers ALWAYS sound more dynamic more lifelike "

    This is pure nonsense. The truth is that on an absolute basis, ALL loudspeaker systems are very inefficient at converting electrical power into acoustical power. One watt of acoustical power is an enormous amount. The most efficient loudspeakers ever made are only a few percent efficient as energy converters. The sacrifice in efficiency to gain greater control, lower distortion, wider flatter frequency response is a well known and accepted engineering principle. Of course you have to know what you are doing or it can be a disaster. Low efficiency in itself does not mean improvement, it is a consequence of certain techniques such as negative feedback and damping.

    The Teledyne AR9 was the last and ultimate experession of Edgar Vilcher's concept for his original acoustic suspension design. It was relatively efficient for a speaker of its type. Acoustic Research strived for accuracy by making extensive measurements and proving their worth in live versus recorded demonstrations allowing listeners to judge accuracy for themselves. They were amazingly successful with many different types of instruments from guitars, nickelodeons (both of which I attended) pipe organs, string quartets, and among the last an AR Ten Pi played against Buddy Rich the world famous drummer. It's unfortunate that Arsenal's web site is down for the last few weeks because there is an extensive thread now archived about this particular demo by the people who were actually involved in setting it up and conducting it. HOW MANY LIVE VERSUS RECORDED DEMOS HAS Audio Note CONDUCTED???? I'd venture to say the answer would be about.......NONE! Like most manufacturers, they don't dare. The appeal of their products is based on what they think their customers will like, not on what is accurate. In this respect, they are no different from most of their competitors.

  10. #85
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Value is how good it sounds -that is the only point of a stereo system. If one speaker puts $900.00 worth of materials etc into his $1000.00 retail speakers while Audio Note puts $400.00 into their $1000.00 speakers knowing this means the first is better - but if the latter sounds ten times better - it's the one I'm buying. The former I view as an idiot for not getting way more out of their speaker.
    Yes! You hit the nail in the head! TEN of my favorite LPs sounding TEN times better means 100 times more value to me

  11. #86
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    HOW MANY LIVE VERSUS RECORDED DEMOS HAS Audio Note CONDUCTED???? I'd venture to say the answer would be about.......NONE!
    What exactly do you mean by LIVE music? Do you mean a live orchestra playing at 110 to 120db? A live pop or jazz band in a controlled listening environment like a studio or a music hall? Live concert of pop band with an enormous crowd using mammoth PA equipment? Can you be more specific?
    Last edited by benil; 07-02-2004 at 07:06 AM.

  12. #87
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Some of the deomonstrations consisted of an Aolean Skinner pipe organ alternating with a handful of AR3s. Another was a nickelodeon flanked by a pair of AR3s. Another was Buddy Rich sitting at his drums flanked by a pair of AR Ten Pis. Recordings were carefully taped outdoors where possible to avoid a double echo effect resulting from recorded room reverberation. On cue, the musicians would stop and the speakers would start picking up the music where the musicians had left off. At the next cue, the situation would reverse. Some of the engineers who devised and conducted these tests are still alive and ready willing and able to talk about them on Arsenal's Classic Speaker web site which as I said has unfortuantely been down for several weeks. The last of these demonstrations was the Buddy Rich demo performed in the mid 1970s reportedly at the factory. Others such as those I attended with the niclelodeon and the guitarist were conducted at trade shows. The accuracy of the speakers was to say the least remarkable. Whether you like their sound or not playing commercial recordings or whether they were successful commercially themselves or not, from an engineer's perspective, they passed the acid test. This is where the rubber meets the road and where the real thing is separated from the wanabees.

    If efficiency was a measure of loudspeaker quality, Klipschorn, Altec A7 and JBL Hartsfield would be among the top units ever produced, not only far more efficient than Acoustic Research but also much more efficient than Audio Note as well.

  13. #88
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    The differences in the configurations are minimal. The incremental cost of the better parts is also minimal. These guys think that as audio tinkerers they should be paid the same wage for their after hours extra curricular activities as they get for their real work. If there are people out there willing to pay it, why shouldn't they. I'm not.

  14. #89
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Some of the deomonstrations consisted of an Aolean Skinner pipe organ alternating with a handful of AR3s. Another was a nickelodeon flanked by a pair of AR3s. Another was Buddy Rich sitting at his drums flanked by a pair of AR Ten Pis. Recordings were carefully taped outdoors where possible to avoid a double echo effect resulting from recorded room reverberation. On cue, the musicians would stop and the speakers would start picking up the music where the musicians had left off. At the next cue, the situation would reverse. Some of the engineers who devised and conducted these tests are still alive and ready willing and able to talk about them on Arsenal's Classic Speaker web site which as I said has unfortuantely been down for several weeks. The last of these demonstrations was the Buddy Rich demo performed in the mid 1970s reportedly at the factory. Others such as those I attended with the niclelodeon and the guitarist were conducted at trade shows. The accuracy of the speakers was to say the least remarkable. Whether you like their sound or not playing commercial recordings or whether they were successful commercially themselves or not, from an engineer's perspective, they passed the acid test. This is where the rubber meets the road and where the real thing is separated from the wanabees.

    am a buddy rich (and Gene Krupa) fan myself and i liked his drum solo in "Jumping At the Woodside" best in his "This One's For Basie" LP. Sounds more "live" with Audio Note gear than any of the other gear/ systems i've heard.

    were other equipment demonstrated side-by-side with the ARs? don't tell me other equipment were not tested or compared with the ARs for this Live demo. what's the relevance of a demo if there is no point of reference? can we say it sounds accurate in absolute terms. what if another SET of gear is able to reproduce live event you referred to better than the AR?

    the comparison by contrast section of Qvortrup and Norwitz clearly states the importance of relative performance of gear to others when choosing your audio gear:

    "Even if we were present at every recording session, we would have no way of interpreting the electrical information which feeds through the microphones to the master tape--let alone to the resulting CD or LP -- into a sensory experience against which we could evaluate a given audio system" from audio hell


    also reproduction of music played outdoors would not top my list of music titles i'd like to listen to with my gear. i prefer listening to a "live" studio recording (single take) using 2-tracks (left and right) over a live indoor or outdoor concert. The latter, to sound balanced (no one instrument dominating the others) usually requires the use of huge multi-track mixers and amplifiers for all the various instruments and musicians to be heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    If efficiency was a measure of loudspeaker quality, Klipschorn, Altec A7 and JBL Hartsfield would be among the top units ever produced, not only far more efficient than Acoustic Research but also much more efficient than Audio Note as well.
    the most efficient speakers or speaker systems i've heard are great with dynamics and headroom.i've heard altec 604s and 605s in open baffles, several versions of ALTEC voice of the theater, SET tri-amped JADIS (a french brand) eurithmie of , Klipsch, Tannoy Westminster, sequera full range etc. all rated close to 105db and very high impedance.

    despite all their strenghts, however i don't find them any of them to be as involving as Audio Note speakers. btw, I also like listening in a "living room" type of an environment. i'm not into an acoustically treated theater-type of listening room which SS followers seem to prefer.
    Last edited by benil; 07-02-2004 at 08:53 AM.

  15. #90
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    That assertion is BS. The wattage wars between different amp manufacturers was in high gear by the late-70s. 25 watts at that time would have been well below average for a typical mid-fi receiver. And those output ratings for that era were very conservative because by then the FTC had cracked down on the fallacious and "creative" output ratings that various manufacturers were quoting by the late-60s.
    Skeptic said it first - UHF mentioned it in a book. I notice you don;t quote Skeptic to correct him - you have proof of course too right? Receivers are not high end products. So I really am uninterested in what they claim they can produce.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    And I suppose that all those panel speakers that practically need a dedicated circuit to drive to moderately to high volumes are just as poorly designed as those slim line speakers that you love to hate?
    The 10 watt Sugden A21 was a popular match for the low impedence but stable Quad electrostatic panels - the fact that the ML is hog might be because they aren't as good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    Hmmm, the "emperor has no clothes"? I get it. Technology is bad. Music is not technology. Therefore speakers with no technology are good. Nice logic.
    Quite the reverse - technology that offers zilch to make music better then yes the emperor has no clothes. Math was math in 1940 - the difference was they did not try and cheap out and invent excuses to make garbage and pass it off as being superior technology - alla Bose etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    For someone who didn't even follow audio until the early-90s, you sure know a lot about how people lived and shopped in the 70s. Let me clue you in something that you may not be aware of. People in ANY era are going to look for the best product for the best price within their budget range. I don't know where you get this twisted idea that service and quality were things that people were more willing to pay for back then than they are now. People were just as cheap back then as they are now. It's just that back then fewer of them could afford anything beyond a basic record changer or portable cassette player.
    Back then people would have their toaster or stereo or tv etc repaired if it broke down - the mentality of many people not all was that you don't waste something that can be fixed - just like people who don't like to have their kids waste food and make them eat every scrap - I seriously doubt that today's young parents do that - no one I know would be like that today with their kids - but man even my folks made me sit and eat those freaking Brussel sprouts. Today something brweaks and you dump it and get another one. Most of this is price - obviously if you paid $1000 for a VCR and it breaks in the 13 month you're going to pay $100 to repair it - but today a VCR is $49.99 and you can get another one - hell we went through 3 in the last year because they're so dismally built.

    The main reason Bryston does so well has hardly anything to do with the fact that they are any bit superior to most quality power amplifiers - the 20 year transferable warranty and incredible customer service is what makes them king of the hill. There are many people who value these so I'm not saying no one does - but they sell largely because of this aspect - because many others don't - the people who seek out Build construction and after market care as priorities will seek out Bryston - look how many threads disscuss this as an advantage when it comes to Yamaha - people are willing to pay extra for it. So I concede the generalizion was unfair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    The first record player my family got cost $50 in 1972. The thing was a GE folddown record changer with detachable speakers, it sounded like crap, and the tonearm had such poor tracking that we needed to tape a penny to the headshell. At an inflation-adjusted rate of $225, you means to tell me that a CD mini system that sells that that price today sounds worse than that $50 record changer from 1972? The lowest priced stereo boomboxes in the late-70s almost all cost more than $100. Inflation adjusted, that would now cost about $260. I doubt that even you would find fault in a $260 mini system of today in a direct comparison with that boombox from 1979. If you're talking about price and value, yeah EVERYTHING in the 70s was about quality and service. What bull****.
    Oh but you're comparing the boom box then to now - I never said everything. They had gimmicks in the 1970s as they have gimmicks now and they had cheap junk then as they do now - and they even tried to use advertising extolling the scinence of superiority as they do now. Your toaster today breaks it's in the garbage bin the next day you bu a new one - that was less apparent in 1970 and earilier - which is why there are so few repair outlets. Even until the early 90s in my town there was a place that repaired TV's. It's gone. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to replace the item. Granted today's television LOOKS better with advancing technology in that regard though it is still based of the original principle a TUBE - but the build construction of those Wega's is garbage. SET's have also utilized the NEW technology of today improve those designs. The difference is that they also kept the build quality and betterred it to go along with the superior technological parts advances.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woochifer
    And your generalization about internet speakers is equally ridiculous. People who buy things factory direct over the internet are looking for the best performance for the best price. What makes you think that they DON'T care about the sound quality? They're trying to get a higher level of performance than what they typically see at their price point. THAT'S why they go the mail order route. I went with a mail order subwoofer because the performance and design that I was looking for WAS NOT available at my price point with the retail options that I was looking at. The fact that an option was available through an internet direct company was worth trying. And as it stands, my bass setup far exceeds anything else I've heard in this price range.
    I seriously doubt that this is the case - certainly they are attempting to get more for their money buying off the net - whether that ends up being the result or not is another matter. An unknowable one except to the individual - not everyone who bought the Axioms on the threads I've been on are any happier with them than what they could get at B&Ms or nOhr etc. But i'll concede the attempt was there.

    http://www.republika.pl/mparvi/300b.htm
    Last edited by RGA; 07-02-2004 at 10:43 AM.

  16. #91
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Here are some facts about the horsepower wars of the mid 1960s to mid 1970s.

    The most conservatively rated amplifiers of the mid 1960s were made by McIntosh, Marantz, and Dynaco. The last of the big tube models popular for the richest audiophiles were Dynaco MK III which were 60 watt monoblocks, MC275 also available as MC 75 monoblocks, and Marantz model 8 which cold be configured as a pentode or triode amplifier and so had different power ratings but was in that range. McIntosh also offered 300 watt tube monoblocks. These same ratings would probably have applied after the FTC ruling. They were for continuous power per channel with both channels driven over a specified bandwidth with a given maximum harmonic and IM distortion. In 1968 Crown introduced the DC 300 which put out a whopping 185 wpc under the same conditions. Phase Linear followed shortly with the Phase Linear 400 and Phase Linear 700 presumably with 200 and 350 wpc. A tier below was the IHF method of meausrement which was 25% higher. Most receivers were in the 15 to 50 wpc rms in the early to mid 60s but were rated slightly higher by the IHF (Institute of High Fidelity) method 20 watts RMS = 25 watts IHF. I don't think the manufacturers had to even use the same power supply as came with the amplifier either, they could substitute a lab bench supply of the same voltage. Then there was the EIA power. This usually doubled the IHF power and allowed up to 5% distortion. Finally there were amplifiers rated by the power they consumed, not by the power they delivered to a load. So a 20 watt RMS =25watt IHF= 50 watt EIA might be a 100 watt or more by this new method without a name. Finally about 1975 the FTC stepped in and required not only the most rigorous rating method in use but required a 20 minute preconditioning at 1/3 rated power. Even so, Big receiver manufacturers like Marantz, Kenwood, Pioneer, Sansui started building flagship units with 150 wrms and more. Other models with power ratings of 60 wpc rms became commonplace. 100 to 200 wpc solid state amplifiers also became very commonplace as well. The issue of adequate power for all but the least efficient speakers like Bose 901 or electrostatics was for all intents and purposes over.

  17. #92
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The issue of adequate power for all but the least efficient speakers like Bose 901 or electrostatics was for all intents and purposes over.
    Agreed. I have always centered a system around the speaker that meets the greatest number of my priorities. The choice of amplification is secondary. Since I favor the purity of condenser transducers, be they microphones or speakers, I am faced with a higher power requirement. Given the availability of a wide range of higher power amplifiers, I find that to be a non-issue.

    rw

  18. #93
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Of course the entire issue is moot - If you own the AN E you can use either a 5 watt amp or a 500 watt amp. If you absolutely despise tubes great - but if you want your low watt tube amp option open - Totem etc is not going to cut it.

    Watts are abused -- like my over generalized statement that high efficency is more lifelike in dynamics the notion that high mega watts are going to be a better sounding amplifier is also. I mean just look at those 550 watt JVC boom boxes with big red flashing lights - I mean they look as tacky as it can get but for a kid sure would be "cool"

    But it's interesting that that despite all that it won't play as loud as an E and 8 watt amplifier. Not even remotely in the ball park. Because a few of us know the relationships between sensitivity even if just enough to get us by we are not going to be conned by buying watts alone. But does the average consumer?

    I guess this is what saddens me more is that people out there who want good sound are looking at woofer sizes and watt figures and the size of the speakers - what reviews have to say - I have looked after the purchase more out if interest not as a gode me into buying them.

    My first experience with watt nonsense was when a Arcam at 75 watts sounded better than the 125 watt flagship Pioneer Elite and Denons of the time(Mid to late 90's). Especially noticable in the bass. If the difference can be that startling - on a sub satelite system from M&K and my own 95db horn Wharfedales - easy as pie to drive - then I began to wonder what the hell the spec sheets were all about. The Pionner claimed numbers that Bryston would be proud of - but only when the Bryston was hooked up I no longer wanted to sell what I thought were flabby crappy speakers - was not the speaker after all.

    I can't see needing more than 60 watts to drive any loudspeaker to acceptably loud levels. 4 watts to get 87(average speaker) decibals at 8 feet is still bloody loud.

    I remember listening to a carver or CJ or something that had the actual meters on the channels - driving a set of speakers i don;t recall - but not a horn - and they had these thing rattling the walls of the store - very big room because it was the open entry area - the meters never exceeded 12 watts and that was just momentary bursts - and we're talking deafening levels - most of the time the meters were sitting at 1-4watts with little bursts. Kinda of fun to watch actually. But if yu were listening at normal levels even normally loud levels this thing would probably not move past 6. The sepakers were probably in the range of 89-91db like many today are.

    Even my audition of the N805 surprised me because I was expecting the 8 watt Meishu to have all sorts of probelms - but not so. So how can I anyone who heard that system say that 8 watts isn't enough - I was playing it pretty loud - sure another could play louder the math will show that - but my hearing is intact and I'd like to keep it that way. Though an 80 watt amp would get the N805 to play twice as loud perceptually going by the numbers - I don't really see how it could do that so I'm a bit skeptical of those max watt numbers of the speakers.

  19. #94
    Forum Regular Woochifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    6,883
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Skeptic said it first - UHF mentioned it in a book. I notice you don;t quote Skeptic to correct him - you have proof of course too right? Receivers are not high end products. So I really am uninterested in what they claim they can produce.
    So what if they're "not high end" products? You were claiming that 25 watts in the late-70s was a "beast of an amp" and I'm telling you that there were plenty of products on the market back then that far exceeded that. The trend at that point was more towards upping the wattage figures as much as possible, and that was the time that the FTC standard came into being, so the actual output almost always exceeded what the rating said. If you're uninterested in a truth check to what your boys at UHF are conjuring up in their imaginations and revisionist history, then so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The 10 watt Sugden A21 was a popular match for the low impedence but stable Quad electrostatic panels - the fact that the ML is hog might be because they aren't as good.
    This love affair with all things Audio Note has really gone to your head. Now you're saying that ML is not as good as a Quad? Didn't you at one time consistently wax poetic about the sound of MLs, but now because they don't fit into this high efficiency doctrine, they're suddenly no good?

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Quite the reverse - technology that offers zilch to make music better then yes the emperor has no clothes. Math was math in 1940 - the difference was they did not try and cheap out and invent excuses to make garbage and pass it off as being superior technology - alla Bose etc.
    Yeah, and the recording mechanisms in the 1940s were far inferior to what's available today. If you think that all that needed to be invented and discovered about acoustical science and electronics occurred by the 1940s, then I suggest that you check out some monophonic 78s and Western Electric movie soundtracks, and tell me how that's superior to SACD and DTS. Sorry, but the transducers from that era that I've heard are not what I would regard as realistic, musical, or whatever other subjective adjective you might want to base you conclusions on.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Back then people would have their toaster or stereo or tv etc repaired if it broke down - the mentality of many people not all was that you don't waste something that can be fixed - just like people who don't like to have their kids waste food and make them eat every scrap - I seriously doubt that today's young parents do that - no one I know would be like that today with their kids - but man even my folks made me sit and eat those freaking Brussel sprouts. Today something brweaks and you dump it and get another one. Most of this is price - obviously if you paid $1000 for a VCR and it breaks in the 13 month you're going to pay $100 to repair it - but today a VCR is $49.99 and you can get another one - hell we went through 3 in the last year because they're so dismally built.
    You know why people repaired and held onto things back then? BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER TO REPAIR SOMETHING THAN TO BUY A NEW ONE! A basic RCA color TV cost over $1,000 in the early-70s, which is well over $3,000 in today's money. Those freaking things had vacuum tubes that burned out regularly, so they needed frequent servicing. They wasted energy, had pictures that drifted (does the old "horizontal hold" dial mean anything to you?), had tuners that couldn't hold the signal, and had lousy audio quality to boot. A $200 WalMart special today will give you superior performance AND it doesn't need to be serviced on a regular basis. Even if you have to buy a new one every other year, the cost of ownership would still be lower than that 70s vintage console TV. Your longing for the good ole days is filtered through the lenses of wishful thinking rather than reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    The main reason Bryston does so well has hardly anything to do with the fact that they are any bit superior to most quality power amplifiers - the 20 year transferable warranty and incredible customer service is what makes them king of the hill. There are many people who value these so I'm not saying no one does - but they sell largely because of this aspect - because many others don't - the people who seek out Build construction and after market care as priorities will seek out Bryston - look how many threads disscuss this as an advantage when it comes to Yamaha - people are willing to pay extra for it. So I concede the generalizion was unfair.
    How many people buy Bryston or even buy products in Bryston's price range? Not very many. And if you're looking at audio gear of today versus what was made yesteryear in a comparable price class, you'll see that the quality IS comparable. Take for example, the Marantz 2275 receiver that I grew up with. Cost was $600 in 1976. In today's dollars that would work out to nearly $2,000. Think of how much amp you can buy for that amount of money today. I would guess that a contemporary $2,000 two-channel amp would be AT LEAST as high in quality as that Marantz was back then. THAT'S how you do comparable comparisons. Not by comparing a $600 model from yesteryear with a $600 product from today. But, even there my Yamaha AV receiver holds up very favorably with that Marantz, and it doesn't have all these interconnected switches and buttons that can start to short out within five years, and it can do multichannel.

    Yamaha is recommended for their quality yes, but they are no more expensive than similarly appointed Denon, Onkyo, Marantz, or h/k models. All other things being equal, yes you go with the higher quality. But, the price equation is nil in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    Oh but you're comparing the boom box then to now - I never said everything. They had gimmicks in the 1970s as they have gimmicks now and they had cheap junk then as they do now - and they even tried to use advertising extolling the scinence of superiority as they do now. Your toaster today breaks it's in the garbage bin the next day you bu a new one - that was less apparent in 1970 and earilier - which is why there are so few repair outlets. Even until the early 90s in my town there was a place that repaired TV's. It's gone. It's cheaper for the manufacturer to replace the item. Granted today's television LOOKS better with advancing technology in that regard though it is still based of the original principle a TUBE - but the build construction of those Wega's is garbage. SET's have also utilized the NEW technology of today improve those designs. The difference is that they also kept the build quality and betterred it to go along with the superior technological parts advances.
    Well, you were the one who brought up WalMart and Best Buy, and how everyone who shops there only cares about price and not about quality blah blah blah. You're using WalMart as an example of the bargain hunting mentality of today, and I'm just pointing out that today's HTIB and mini system buyers are the same as yesterday's cheap record changer and all-in-one system purchasers. When those old record changers broke, guess what? People tossed them and got a new one.

    If you inflation adjust the prices, those all-in-one systems from yesteryear would actually cost more than double what a Sony HTIB system costs today. And judging from first hand experience, I would MUCH rather listen to a Sony HTIB system than revert back to a 70s vintage all-in-one system. If you compare what the $200-$400 price of an all-in-one system got you back in the mid-70s and compare that to what in comparable dollar terms $600-$1,000 will buy you today, it's no contest.

    Those Wegas have had a spotty reliability record, but in real dollar terms, they only cost one-third of what an old RCA or Zenith color console cost 30 or so years ago, and they don't need vacuum tube replacement, the picture doesn't drift, the tuner can hold the signal, they have remote control, there are much fewer moving parts to wear out, and the picture is MUCH better. Some more reliable Toshiba and Panasonic TVs give you all that plus longer term durability. And it's not like those old consoles were THAT reliable either. Just because something was so expensive that it justified keeping and repairing sure as hell doesn't mean that it was a more reliable or higher quality product.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I seriously doubt that this is the case - certainly they are attempting to get more for their money buying off the net - whether that ends up being the result or not is another matter. An unknowable one except to the individual - not everyone who bought the Axioms on the threads I've been on are any happier with them than what they could get at B&Ms or nOhr etc.
    Why don't you ask someone who bought a factory direct speaker about what their motivation was rather than conjuring up these conpiracy theories about their motives? You might be surprised to learn that they went that route because they wanted ... OMG ... BETTER SOUND QUALITY FOR THE MONEY! Some people are legitimately frustrated with the options available in their price range, and are willing to try a factory direct option. That certainly fit my mood when I was shopping for a subwoofer. I was willing to roll the dice to get an affordable subwoofer that met my criteria, and in my case it worked out.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    But i'll concede the attempt was there - or that well they look cool and the reviewer liked it and Toole saidit was good so it must be.
    Like I said, value is a personal definition and looks are a part of the value equation for more people nowadays. I know that my wife would not stand for a couple of huge black boxes in the middle of the floor. And back in your favorite era, I heard plenty of big box speakers that pale in comparison to most of the slim profile speakers of today, and on average, today there are much fewer truly lousy speakers out there than there were in the 70s. Those big $600 JBL L65s that I grew up with (nearly $2,000 in today's dollars) can't even come close to what a $900 pair of Studio 40s is capable of. But, at least those JBLs had solid walnut cabinets.

    Show me one example where "Toole said it was good so it must be." He doesn't do product reviews, and he doesn't write subjective evaluations about individual speaker models. Your reflex abhorence of that guy is getting laughable. Everything wrong with audio is attributable to research done by Toole! Guess what, ALL speaker companies do testing and research! Just not all of them publish their findings the way that Harman does. Even though I don't own any Harman Int'l. speakers, their white papers are relevant to what I do with my system, and backed up with well documented research. For you to dog on Harman and compare them to Bose indicates to me that either you've never read their stuff or you will just condemn anything that you don't understand. Bose does not talk about room modes, time domain, frequency response, or off-axis response -- they dumb down the research and basically lie about why discredited approaches such off-angled drivers, bandpass subwoofers, and high crossover frequencies are the best way to go. Harman explains scientifically validated concepts and practical approaches to why they are relevant for a typical room setup. For example, Harman's RABOS room mode attenuation feature may be accompanied by slick marketing materials, but it's a feature that's also based on sound scientific concepts that have real world benefits. Same benefit as the parametric EQ that I use, except that the RABOS system takes less than 10 minutes while the manual approach that I use takes about 90 minutes.
    Last edited by Woochifer; 07-02-2004 at 12:22 PM.

  20. #95
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I can't see needing more than 60 watts to drive any loudspeaker to acceptably loud levels. 4 watts to get 87(average speaker) decibals at 8 feet is still bloody loud.
    Naturally that depends both upon the speaker involved and the music played. I am perhaps a bit unusual in that my musical tastes are rather wide ranging - I may follow up listening to Madonna with Stravinsky. On average, the power levels with classical music are far less, but - on an instantaneous basis, such wide dynamic range material can demand very much higher levels. I have listened to a pretty wide range of high powered amps, SS and tube alike. Only with the larger tube amps do I perceive an elusive quality of "authority" or absolute control and lack of strain. That is why I have a pair of 450 watt tube amps. And if money were no object, I would have even more as I have heard what a pair of VTL Wotans can do.

    rw

  21. #96
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Naturally that depends both upon the speaker involved and the music played. I am perhaps a bit unusual in that my musical tastes are rather wide ranging - I may follow up listening to Madonna with Stravinsky. On average, the power levels with classical music are far less, but - on an instantaneous basis, such wide dynamic range material can demand very much higher levels. I have listened to a pretty wide range of high powered amps, SS and tube alike. Only with the larger tube amps do I perceive an elusive quality of "authority" or absolute control and lack of strain. That is why I have a pair of 450 watt tube amps. And if money were no object, I would have even more as I have heard what a pair of VTL Wotans can do.

    rw
    I can accept this - the other thing we need to note here as well is room size and your prefernce for volume levels - And loads of other things. The AN's have a lot of plusses but ultimate volume capability is not one of them. They are not going to play like a club speaker can play in terms of volume level.

    As an aside I was reading about one of the VTL amps that was a technical marvel telling you how hot your tubes were running auto bias between tracks, how much life is left and slew of other rather interesting things. Pretty sure it was VTL - big watts - it was in one of the last two UHF magazines. Tubes are not the same as they once were. Audio Note has one tube unit rated for 100,000+ hours or ~11 years 24 hours a day - or gee for many people that would be 3 hours a day for 88 years. And we're worried about tube life?

  22. #97
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    I can accept this - the other thing we need to note here as well is room size and your prefernce for volume levels - And loads of other things... They are not going to play like a club speaker can play in terms of volume level.
    My room is relatively large at 30x15 feet. At age 47, I have long ago given up listening at ear bleeding levels. In fact, I wear ear protection when mowing the lawn or using the trimmer. Using my Radio Shack meter, I record instantaneous peak levels at seating position in the low 90s.

    Quote Originally Posted by RGA
    As an aside I was reading about one of the VTL amps that was a technical marvel telling you how hot your tubes were running auto bias between tracks, how much life is left and slew of other rather interesting things. Pretty sure it was VTL - big watts - it was in one of the last two UHF magazines.
    You are referring to the Siegfrieds that use computer controlled circuitry to constantly monitor and maintain ideal tube bias for the output tubes. They are special amplifiers indeed. If memory serves from discussing the design with him, he incorporated four separate design teams to create the product.

    http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/


    rw

  23. #98
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    I am not comparing a wega to a 30 year old television. What I am saying is there isn't something enw about a tube set today than there was 30 years ago or the principle behind todays VCR as opposed to one 20 years ago. The new ones are certainly BETTER.

    Electrostats have been around for decades - no doubt today's versions are better because they have been continually been betterring the parts quality. Even Sugden managed to get better sound and a few more watts because of improved capacitors among other things that could handle heat better. Princaply there is nothing new about any of this.

    Getting to the actual thread which is focussed back to the E - it is no different than having a stat platform and improving it - they have improved the Snell platform.

    Toole does not comment by giving a review but he does work for Harman - Harman has a speical interest in aqcuiring Toole to be on their staff - and when tests are conducted blind Harman speakers come out best. Excuse me for seeing some bias here. Some of those speakers do very well in the blind sessions at Hi-fi Choice(The Intermezzo 2.6 is a Rabos design and was awarded a Best Buy) so there is certainly merrit in them(i'm not saying buy Audio Note or nothing - but these were also awarded a best buy and recommended etc)

    - I like to see external listening sessions rather than those conducted by the people selling the speakers. B&W can do a blind test where B&W's come out on top and Harman speakers come out last and B&W can hire a team of world experts and George Lucas himself to imply that this is the best approach to building loudspeakers and that most people will choose our loudspeakers because their measurments dictate that they are the superior design blah blah blah- and all of that is fine because it helps make a sale much of the time. Except the flaw in this is that that doesn't necessarily happen when I and a LOT of other people go and listen to the speakers.

    ML I like and I have not changed my view of them because of their impedence - but they have had trouble with integration always have of their woofer - and they require gobs of power - they have worked on this many of their panels now don't go under 3 ohms.

    Many stats and panels are consistant with their impedence - even when low impedence it's not as jumpy. And they offer certain advantages people like over any boxed speaker including Audio Note. They also have plenty of disadvantages as well - so what else is new?

  24. #99
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    You are referring to the Siegfrieds that use computer controlled circuitry to constantly monitor and maintain ideal tube bias for the output tubes. They are special amplifiers indeed. If memory serves from discussing the design with him, he incorporated four separate design teams to create the product.

    http://www.vtl.com/pages/Amplifiers/Siegfried/


    rw
    And they say tubes are low tech - that thing looks futuristic. And at 175lbs how can people say you're not getting anything under the hood with tube amps?

    Please at least you're getting solid weight to tube amps. And 800 watts. Yes I'm sure tube amps suck. I'm sure my Marantz SS reciever is much better than the VTL.

  25. #100
    RGA
    RGA is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,539
    Quote Originally Posted by 92135011
    This is genuinely the worst thing about internet forums. Too much talk, not enough listening. If you guys like your technologically superior transistor amps, well that's fine. Why is it important if I like it? If you like the classic valve amps, thats cool too. What does that matter to me. Maybe transistors are superior; maybe valve amps are. It's all about perception. It's all relative - not absolute. Not that I care too much if you like either type anyways as long as you dont extend your arm into trying to influence me into liking exactly what you like.
    Woochiefer's point about value being subjective is well taken. If that holds at least some truth, then it should hold true to everything. As I have said before. Who cares if you like expensive cables? Who cares if you like CD over vinyl? Who cares about any of other peoples business? It don't bother me.
    Don't get me wrong. Discussing is cool. Expansion of knowledge is great. But if it isnt asked, then it dont need to be answered. Everyone has their own passion. RGA loves Audio Note, as do I. Skeptic doesnt like tubes. But RGA seems to like them. Not that it bothers me.

    Should it bother you?
    Frankly the best advice - buy whatever the hell makes you happy - is that not the point? To dervie happiness out of what you get - the forums here are to bring attention to different perspecitves. Give them a try and decide for yourself.

    Now who will be the first to post number 100 on this thread? LOL.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

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
  •