MrTennis, I'm shocked :) are you running a double standard ??!
Why can't an amplifier have the same status you just bestowed on the Quad?? |
MrTennis, I've played string bass since 7th grade, piano since I was 3 (I was getting lessons that early :/ ), guitar since 6th grade and flute since 6th grade. More recently I've added a variety of synthesizers...
(http://www.myspace.com/salubriousinvertebrae and http://www.myspace.com/thunderboltpagoda)
-obviously I am still playing. I've also been producing CDs and LPs for the last 22 years. Of course, none of **that** makes me an authority about sound :), but-
By no means does a Quad play all those things right, regardless of the amplifier driving it, even one of ours. It lacks bass performance, is dynamically restricted, is not the last word in transparency and is rolled-off on the highs. Not to say that its a bad speaker- I think they sound great! and I like them a lot. But *I* think the speakers I have at home sound better as they are equally transparent, have frequency extension, way more dynamic range and set up easier in the room (meaning I get better room interaction).
Now- you have to admit you have a preference (and not because I say so, simply because it *is* so); that the Quad is in fact not the **best** speaker around, even though it is excellent, that your feelings about the speaker are in fact your own opinion.
OR- take back all your comments about how there is no 'best amplifier'. |
the speaker might be too revealing. Can a speaker or any other piece of equipment be 'too revealing'?? This is not something I've ever heard of before. Is it possible that you prefer equipment that is chosen with a preference for a lack of detail (perhaps to cover up deficiencies in recordings or other equipment)? I've also noticed that you've not responded to any of my prior posts in this thread. Did I hit a nerve? If so that was not my intention; the point of my other posts was not to make you wrong, but to get an actual answer. |
if a spekaer reveals both musical and non musical information in a manner whcih is not realistic, then it is too revealing. (sic) Seems what you are describing here is something other than 'too revealing'; if it were me, I might describe that as a coloration. It seems that there is a concession here that you have made in that you acknowledge that there is no best- only best for you. Yet in the post where you responded to me above, you said: but does establish performance in that regard. So I have a question. **IF** we establish performance 'in that regard' are you saying that that established performance is then a known entity that can be used as a yard stick? If yes, then can a series of 'established performance' qualities then add up to something? Finally, why would you buy a Martin-Logan sound un-heard when you know that your CJ won't be able to drive it?? That would mean that you would be on the hunt for an amplifier (probably transistor, as ML is traditionally a very difficult load for all tube amps). Pardon my saying so, but it seems out of character for you. Am I missing something or did you not know about that quality of ML speakers? |
MrT, I've done a lot of recordings in halls and watched major labels at it too. They all put the mics up towards the front, so as to give you the perspective of the 'best seat in the house'. IOW if your equipment gives you a different perspective, then something isn't right! So what I get from your post is that you hear cone speakers having a more accurate soundstage presentation, but not one you **prefer** as you like to sit in the back?
Could you comment on that? |
MrT, most Martin Logans are about 0.5ohms at high frequencies, usually starting out in the lows at 4 ohms. There are literally no tube amps made that drive loads like that without difficulty. Its not a presumption on my part- its just the way it is. ML wants their speakers to work with transistor amps so they set the impedance very low. Unfortunately Quad has been following in their footsteps as has Innersound. Sound Lab used to do the same thing but seems to have realized in recent years that they need to moderate their impedances. A point to consider:- what we are really talking about is neutral reproduction. If a speaker driver is truly neutral, its not going to matter if its made of cloth, paper, mylar or beryllium. It is simply going to be neutral. I don't see how you can say you have no best in the face of some of your earlier comments in which a yardstick is created: there is no best anything. however, at a point in time, one can say that given say 5 speakers, one of them is least inaccurate timbrally. that doesn't make it the best, but does establish performance in that regard. This statement seems to have a contradiction. What am I missing? |
MrT, you might contact ML about that impedance. Its been that way with them for a long time, since the CLS 2 FWIW. I remember some of the Sequels were a little easier, and the old CLS 1 was the easiest of all...
With regards to the communication: I see in your comments that you do not regard a measurable and audible performance increase as good, for you there is only preference, such as your preference for the Quad, or perhaps the ML that you have not heard. Yet you acknowledge that the performance increase is real. I take it you don't see contradiction in that? |
MrT, that which is real exists in time and space, and has the property of being measurable. Obviously specifications are measurable and therefore real, but so is love- it too exists in time and space, and the one experiencing it can definitely measure it. I have included the latter example because it is easy to think of something like that as being **perceptual** only.
So how much do you love your music and stereo? Enough to spend money on it and take a stand for the equipment that brings you that music?? You can't tell me that you have no idea!
Those things that rely on perception only are subject to interpretation, however in the cases I mentioned, I was careful to include those that were both audible **and** measurable.
There may be no contradiction in your preference and perception, but so far I see that there has indeed been contradiction in your communication. There also appears to be a sort of double standard that you have exercised over the years; where you hold amplifiers on an entirely different ground from that of speakers. I can go dig up the references if you like, but the most telling one is from any earlier part of this thread:
http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1201458336&openflup&21&4#21
You have maintained that there is no 'best amplifier' but you clearly are stating in 2 different ways in the above link that there is some sort of best when it comes to speakers. You can't have it both ways- there must be an amplifier for which no other will be better, period. Right? |
Shadorne, I think you are better at saying all that than me! |
Henryhk, they were right next to us at T.H.E. Show. He wanted to hear our amps and I had a backup set of M-60s available- The speaker is easy to drive (bass is handled by an internal amplifier) and every easy to listen to- spacious, detailed, wide bandwidth and very neutral.
MrT, you may not like the way that the record labels make their recordings but the fact is that they make their recordings the way they make their recordings. If you want the perspective to be the way you like it, you will have to go out and make a recording that way yourself. Whether best or not, any system that distorts the perspective of soundstage is in fact distorting the perspective of soundstage. An obvious distortion or inability like that is clearly not 'best', in fact it might be worst (the opposite of best), at least in the arena of soundstage depth.
Soundstage depth is one of many aspects heard by audiophiles. Audiophiles hear these things because they all have ears that use the same rules for sound location, intensity, bandwidth and so on. In fact these rules operate independently of taste.
I once met a guy who hated his teeth and wanted dentures. Loosing my teeth is one of my worst nightmares. Taste is the sort of thing that is so unaccountable that one person can hate their own teeth (even though they are healthy), or hate accurate reproduction of soundstage.
I submit to you that taste has nothing to do with 'best'. The best-sounding amplifier/speaker will be that thing due to the fact that it can reproduce an audio signal more closely according to the rules of human hearing than any other amplifier/speaker. You can still hate it though, for its attention to accuracy, detail, musical nature, relaxed and spacious presentation, bandwidth and impact: you can hate it for the very fact that it is the 'best'. You don't have to hate it consciously- and so to justify the taste issue it is also possible to say there is no 'best', but such would never be the case. It would be a simple denial of what is so. |
stereo system a is accurate--fact
stereo system b is inaccurate--fact
so far, there would be no disagreement if the facts were established properly.
to say stereo system a is better than stereo system b is illogical and only an opinion. Mrt, I did not get your email. BTW your conclusion above is not logical. System A in the example above is logically the better. This is because 'accurate' is deemed by the world at large (through agreement) to be better than 'inaccurate'. Many things exist out of agreement. Money is a good example- the material of a $100 bill are worth marginally more than a piece of paper the same size; we give it the value out of agreement. Stop signs have their value out of agreement as well. So logic dictates: if accurate is better than inaccurate, and system A is accurate and system B is not, then A is better than B. You may attach whatever personal meaning and value you wish to the contrary, but usually its best not to make those feelings public. |
Shadorne, I like the idea of the sonic circle for its attempt to create a means of category. I'm not sure if I completely agree with it- what if you have a system that has all the aspects with none emphasized?
A lot of the panel speakers qualify to me as 'vivid' to use the terms of the circle; they combine emotional with precise. Yet I also hear them being smooth and detailed, they might be a good example of what I'm asking about here.
One thing that has really struck me is that as speakers/systems get better and better, the more they sound similar (and awesome), which is as it should be. |
