Emotiva not so good

---

Emotiva amps are good until you hear another brand in the same space.

Punctuation is your friend.

slowest progress ever except speaker solid state can never beat tube until now cd,dvd,sacd,mdvd can never beat reel to reel or vinyl until now

It peaked somewhere around 1974..

 

N

@thyname - You are correct, he is easy to spot

I named my Turkey Bolognese recipe after Cindymeat.

 

DeKay

tannoy:

Think the RCA' horns looked something like the 2-part WE units (top portion hanging from the ceiling) in this video.

My visual memory is not very good, but the upturned horn on the bottom seems familiar as does the top (hanging) horn.

 

DeKay

@thyname

@roxy54

well that took about, what, about a week of time-out, then back on the hamster wheel?

now watch the airspace here continue fill up with posts, point for point argumentation, tit for tat, little more personal and unruly to others each day, till the plug is pulled, again...  already 162 posts since 'join date' of july 28 2022

what do they say about insanity being doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

@roxy54 : this dude is the only guy I am able to spot. It’s actually pretty easy. His pattern of posting (all 14 usernames) is always the same, and always the same audiophile hating rhetoric. I can spot him in the first 100 (or so) posts of him under the new username, over multiple threads, and over a very short period of time from “joining “. He writes a huge number of posts in a very short period of time. If you aggregate his posts under all his banned usernames, he is by far the most frequent poster in Audiogon, and only in the past 3-4 years since his very first username (AtDavid) surfaced 

thyname,

How are you able to know the previous usermanes of a certain member? I have seen other members do it and I've always wondered.

 

And like a Chicago Alderman he avoids the question. 

@boxer12 :

Last question (for now):

How many names have you used on this site prior to this one?

I can answer this: he is on his 14th username here. Theaudioamp is the latest, but no different than the previously banned 13 usernames. Same pathological hatred for audiophiles and anything audio.  Here is the full list:

 

deludedaudiophile

 

thynamesinnervoice

 

cindyment

 

snratio

 

yesiamjohn

 

sugabooger

 

dletch2

 

audio2design

 

dannad

 

roberttdid 

 

heaudio123

 

audiozenology

 

atdavid

 

 

 

 

 

What is that woman doing in the front row?  She should be in the kitchen!

@tannoy56 from what I remember Bob tried to make his SS amp in that instance sound like his tube amp and failed and made a bad amp. A better comparison would be his big tube amp against a Krell or maybe something Purifi based. I would take the latter two over the Carver tube in a heart beat. I never was a Carver fan. He voiced his amps and liked a particular sound, bad.

tannoy:

Not that one...

The bottom portion looked like a basin that would have been used for washing metal parts in a machinist’s shop 80 years ago.

It was tall and maybe 36" (or less) wide.

Appeared to be metal.

I’ll see if I can come up with a pic of the WE look-a-like later, unless johnk did do the build and can offer info in the meantime.

DeKay

 

Audioamp states:

"I find it funny that people who claim the superiority of vinyl keep trying to get their rigs to sound more and more like digital :-)"

Really...Who does this? (Names please)

 

Next question:

Why the distain for audiophiles & vinyl?

 

Last question (for now):

How many names have you used on this site prior to this one?

 

Please Advise

 

dekay

I believe you're thinking about RCA  LC-9A

 

Not field coil speaker rated, but one of the best videos/sound I've heard on YT (in regard to a vintage horn speaker) may have been done by "johnk" who has posted in this thread.

I think it was an RCA design (not Western Electric) and I'm not certain if it was a rebuild or a reproduction.

Been searching for the video for a few years without any luck.

The speaker/horn looked like an early WE design, but again I think/recall that it was of RCA manufacture.

Audioamp:

I know nothing of the design of the speaker/video I posted, but I do see gaps on the back sides of the horn.

They do not look even/symmetrical to me, but this may be due to the camera angle(s).

DeKay 

theaudioamp

Who is to say what is objective and what is not?  

Progress can only be measured objectively, not subjectively. That’s just the way it is.   

@kingdeezie 

Well, I’m glad you’re not alone on this one. Good luck with the audio venture.

I agree with the premise they want what sounds enjoyable @kingdeezie 

 

However I disagree and believe it is lack of knowledge. There is a big big difference between having what you like, which we can assume most audiophiles have achieved to some degree, and knowing what you like. They may have something they like, but they don't know what it is. Some do. By far most of them do not. They only know what it physically looks like. Because they do not, they can't replicate it when they move, and they can't intelligently work on improving it. They guess, and sometimes that is right, and sometimes it is wrong and most of the time it is exactly the same, but they convince themselves it is better or worse. That is what I mean by knowledge has stunted or even declined.

 

An objective approach to audio does not mean ignoring the subjective. That would be stupid. An objective approach ideally is about identifying the subjective qualities that you as an individual prefer, and giving you the tools to fine tune the objective qualities to your subjective preference.

The responses proceeding my post prove my point. Progress assumes advancement from a lesser point to a better one. 

By most technical aspects audio equipment has and continues to progress. 

Preferring vintage gear is completely subjective. It doesn’t indicate a lack of progression within the space, it just means that it’s sound is more pleasing to certain individuals. 

@theaudioamp Thank you for repeating what I said; just in long-winded form. Most audiophiles don’t care about the technical aspects, they want what sounds enjoyable to them. It’s not a lack of knowledge; it’s a choice. 

 

theaudioamp

Yes, Carver sold more SS gear than VT. The reason being is that he, Carver found a niche in the market for mid hi-fi equipment at very affordable prices.

On your second point: Do you really believe that Carver Silver 7t SS mono block amplifier will driver your big panel speakers and sound better than the Silver 7 tube mono amps?  Not that I like either of them. 

 

Hipsters, funny. 

@tannoy56 ,

 

I expect that over the years, Carver has sold far more SS amplifiers than tube amplifiers. Carver as a company (considering it has been many) had by far its best commercial success in the 80's into 90's with SS amplifiers, the M series and Sunfire series. Did you know he sued Stereophile claiming bias ... essentially claiming it was bad for their business that he was competing with super expensive products on the cheap.

 

Supposedly the M1.0t sounds exceptionally close to a Conrad Johnson Premier Four.

 

However, to the point of my last post, tube amps don't sound better than SS, and often the latter is true too. With SS, the speaker and room is a system. With tubes, it is more accurate that the speakers, room and amp is a system. As a system, the sound is the total, not just one piece. I don't think you will find many saying tubes are the best compliment to big panel speakers.

 

dekay

I truly enjoyed watching and listening to you posted video and I like it as well. Thank you.

@kingdeezie

I have one question for you. Which Carver SS amplifier is sounding better than his own tube amplifiers? In fact, until few years back, Carver was selling mostly tube amplifiers. In addition, Carver himself considers the Citation I, tube preamplifier as the very best ever made.  Is he wright? You tell me...

 

 

HAHAHA....and you thought he could stay away...

Conclusion?:  Because knowledge has stagnated if not declined in high end audio, a market of aspirin and sugar pills sustains itself, where the patient is not only never cured, but is discouraged from seeking treatment.

@kingdeezie

 

I am not picking on you, I am just using you as an example. Perhaps where audio has least progressed and has gone backwards is knowledge. I think the average audiophile today knows less about the underlying technology than the average audiophile 30-40 years ago, and consider the access to technology, that is not good. Manufacturers are absolutely complicit if not avoiding giving consumer knowledge intentionally.

 

Why "can" a tube amplifier sound "better":

1. A unique distortion profile (coupled with higher distortion). This is bandied around a lot, even on here. It is usually coupled with "Well solid state has higher distortion in the real world" and "tube distortion makes it sound fuller, etc.". Here is the thing, most solid state amps today have very low distortion at any frequency. The distortion of most tube amplifiers is low enough that the purported impact on audio is questionable at best (and good luck finding validated evidence). Simulate tube like distortion in a very low distortion systems and you need way more distortion than tube amps created till people even notice a difference.
2. The higher output impedance of tube amplifiers can result lower the distortion of some speakers? Heard that one before? There is truth to it, but it will depend on the the, in a given speaker. It wont be true for all speakers, and definitely not all drivers in any one speaker. Almost all drivers today are designed for a voltage source. That was not always true.
3. The comparatively high output impedance of most tube amplifiers coupled with often naturally non-flat frequency responses coupled with the impedance of the users speaker, and their room response (often without room treatment), results in a pleasing frequency response often with elevated upper base to lower mid-range (where bulk of vocals and instruments sit), enhanced the perceived clarity and providing warmth, while rolling off the upper end, perhaps softening harsher reflections.

 

I would note that one of the defining characteristics of D’Agostino amps is an output impedance more like a tube amp than a solid state amp, and that back in the 80’s Bob Carver made a $700 SS amp, sound just like, what is purported to be a very expensive high end tube amp and did it in only 4 days. (Carver challenge)

 

I can’t exactly replicate #2 above in a SS amp, but just simply adding a resistor in series will accomplish a good deal of that. Carver even put a switchable resistor in some of his amps. #1 is questionable whether it is truly a determining factor in the sound. I am not discounting that distortion can change the sound, just that most tube amps don’t have enough. That leave #3 as the remaining elephant. I can easily equalize an SS amp to have the exact response a tube amp has with any given speaker. Carver did it in hardware. I would do it in software.

 

 

I think; and I'm as guilty of this as any audiophile, that the progress in audio has been dedicated towards absolute fidelity and we all mostly hate it. 

You can get a 225 watt Purifi amplifier made, in a case that you could hold in one hand, with 0.000017% distortion and a 131 signal to noise ratio.

I don't know if you could argue, from a technical standpoint, that a tube amplifier with much worse measurements is more faithful to the source. 

Doesn't mean the tube amplifier won't sound better and be preferred. Hence why most audiophiles feel listening is more important than measuring. 

The progress is out there in droves but not in a direction that all of us will prefer. 

It went that way ====>    

 

making room for even more progress <================

@dekay , that sounds better than the 1/2 million dollar system someone else keeps posting videos for on Youtube :-)

 

I am not familiar with those speakers. I see light coming from the back. Are they open back?

@tannoy56  Most records are sold to hipsters who long for the simpleness of a past generation. As a portion of total music record and tape sales are minuscule.  Most audiophiles not lost in the last century know digital is superior, but often still have good analog rigs (I do) because it allows them to access masterings they would not otherwise be able to. They are under no illusions it is superior.  I find it funny that people who claim the superiority of vinyl keep trying to get their rigs to sound more and more like digital :-)

 

tannoy56:

Here's (see link) a YT video of a FC setup that sounds fantastic.

I do find some YT videos useful (especially when I'm familiar with the speakers being played).

 

DeKay

jasonbourne52

Oh, ya......that’s why LP and analog tape sell prices are through the roof these days? However, I enjoy the convenience and sound quality of  my digital gear as well when is done right.

@theaudioamp +1! In fact for the past few decades beyond a basic level audio electronics have been transparent to the source. Speakers, now that's a different matter!

jpwarren58

Warning! This web side is for mature adult only - no children without parental control allowed.

Oh yea +1 theaudioamp

The video guy has obviously never met Kenjit.  

 I have seen an interview with B. Putzeys in which he stated that it's not important what is in the amplifier, but rather what isn't there in terms of distortion. His conclusion is that classic solid-state amplifiers have some type of distortion that tube amps don't have, which is why they are still very popular. 

As seen in the pages here many have ditched their tubes for some of the newer GaN Class D amplifiers by AGD, Atmospheres and others.

Also he claims that separate components inhibiting progress and the sound chain.

if the amplifier is truly great that’s absolutely right. Sonic signatures are what you get when you approach the same ideal from different angles. There are a few distortion mechanisms conspicuously missing in Class D, mostly those related to the input stage of a Class A(B) solid-state amplifier and nonlinear capacitances. Those are also missing in valve [tube] amplifiers so it’s quite common for people to notice that a Class D amplifier is somehow reminiscent of valve amplification in terms of “sweetness” for want of a better word.

I’ve heard several reports of valve aficionados ditching their glassware and switching to Ncore. All I can conclude from that is that those people clearly weren’t actively seeking the distortion of valves as many believe, but instead had a legitimate beef with certain sonic aspects common to most solid-state designs. That’s one thing I have to explain again and again to my fellow doubters: when audiophiles report a particular listening experience, that experience is real. Trust that. Just don’t trust the explanation they proffer.

Also he claims that separate components inhibiting progress and the sound chain.

 

Our industry’s fixation on separate components is holding us up. The ultimate goal is sound, acoustical output. If you split the signal chain into separates and you require those to be exchangeable, you’re adding technical requirements to the interfaces between those boxes, just to standardize them. Case in point, why are we making amps with super high damping factors? Because a separate power amp means a passive crossover filter and if you don’t define the source impedance you get unpredictable results. But if you take the system level view and ask, “what problem are we trying to solve,” you can improve the distortion performance of a speaker driver enormously by tailoring the output impedance of the amp that’s driving it. That option isn’t available in a separates world. A system level approach allows you to get clearly better performance at a lower price, or something that is completely unattainable using classical means if you spend a bit more.

We suffer from what I call “loss of perspective.” Compared to amplifiers, speakers distort tremendously. But if you keep the speaker and the room the same you can still do an electronics shootout and clearly hear a difference. So you may be tempted to think: Oh, I really need a new preamp. We fool ourselves into thinking that our sonic horizon is expanded immeasurably because we can just change the preamp for a better one. It isn’t. Separates allow us to tinker at the boundaries of that horizon but only after shrinking it to something the size of our backyard.

Anyhow, that’s why I decided to leave amplifiers for now and do speakers instead. The first aim of Kii is to reduce the impact of the room acoustics. The correct list of items in the playback chain in the order of importance is: Room acoustics, speaker acoustics, drive units, then a long void followed by electronics as a remote third. The Kii design tries to make the speaker and the room switch position by reducing the amount of sound that excites room modes without first going to the listener. To do that at bass frequencies is quite a novelty and that’s where rooms need most help. You can’t build a passive speaker that does that so it’s only natural to make it active. The other benefits of combining electronics and speaker in one product follow naturally.

I am a big fan of "Walking Around" lenses, you know those ones with big zoom ranges. Ken Rockwell may suggest framing with your feet, but try that over a body of water, or where access is restricted or physically impossible. Those still have a long way to go.  Inexpensive lenses still have a lot to be desired when used outside their sweet spot.   The Sigma Art stuff is nice.  One area of considerably improvement would be using plastic for internal lenses in the assembly. That would dramatically lower weight. The quality however is not there for plastics yet.

 

@theaudioamp you wrote, "I would argue that lenses still have a long way to go, especially when price is taken into account :-) "....My nephew who has a few Sigma Art lenses would say his are "good enough" and especially his wife, who looks askance at his spending on hobbies like audio and photography... ha! 

@moonwatcher ,

 

Perhaps with your camera analogy should be the recognition that some things you really can't improve or are as good as ever needed for human consumption. Look at pixel count. If you are not blowing it up and/or looking at a printed version close, 12 megapixels can display all the resolution our eyes are capable of picking up. You can add more pixels but you won't see any more as your eyes simply do not have the resolution.  No ones eyes have the resolution. The same is true of audio. This concept of "everything matters" has to be one of the dumbest things in audio yet I wonder how many people have typed it on these forums just this week? There are limits on what we can hear, let alone detect in music. They apply to everyone. There are minor differences but they are not all that great, and the main difference is training. This flawed idea has been used to justify all kinds of things are just nonsense and is used as a crutch by people to avoid accepting their own limitations. Just think if the spend in HiFi was redirected from all the things that make little or no difference into the things that actually do and the companies that do them?  Maybe it would make no difference, but given the op feels, and I tend to agree, that the industry is rather stagnant, change would be welcome.

Much of the progress is in profits. I would put a 1940s Shearer horn up against any of the greatest of today.

@moonwatcher, +1

 

 

@moonwatcher , I would argue that lenses still have a long way to go, especially when price is taken into account :-)    Sensor technology has barely moved in what 7 or 8 years? Small incremental improvements but that is it. Even back side illuminated (BSI) are only a small improvement over front side with micro-lenses. There are some fundamental physical limits w.r.t. cameras. Look up Shot noise if you are unfamiliar.  I think computational photography is where mirrorless needs to go next. The processing in my phone is way beyond what is in my cameras. 

 

Back to your regular arguing (I mean programming) :-) [not directed at you Moonwatcher]

Engineering at any price point is always a tradeoff. No, you "can’t have it all" most of the time - but you can have much of it. I think as others have noted that "technology" and manufacturing has reached a level people only dreamed of say in the 1950s and 1960s. As one guy mentioned this is a GREAT time to be into audio no matter what your budget is, from $1K to $1M. And you reach the point of diminishing returns pretty quickly as you go up the food chain. At some point you are paying more for the industrial design and "looks" than for a huge improvement in sound quality.

Look at digital cameras. Most DSLRs (and lenses) have reached a plateau in performance. Indeed, with mirrorless cameras pushing DSLRs into "old school" obsolescence. What more could be added? They already have more features than 99% of people will ever use, even a professional photographer. For the masses, their cell phones might be the only camera they will ever own.

And for some, it will always be (as it should) a matter of taste. Do you want the liveliness and dynamics of a horn speaker or something more refined and studio sounding. That was the answer Andrew Robinson gave on his YouTube channel when comparing the new Mission Audio 770 to the Klipsch Forte IV.