Steve Guttenberg recently posted on his audiophiliac channel what might be an iconoclastic video.
Steve attempts to crystallise the somewhat nebulous feeling that climbing the ladder to the high-end might be a counter productive endeavour.
This will be seen in many high- end quarters as heretical talk, possibly even blasphemous. Steve might even risk bring excommunicated. However, there can be no denying that the vast quantity of popular music that we listen to is not particularly well recorded.
Steve's point, and it's one I've seen mentioned many times previously at shows and demos, is that better more revealing systems will often only serve to make most recordings sound worse.
There is no doubt that this does happen, but the exact point will depend upon the listeners preference. Let's say for example that it might happen a lot earlier for fans of punk, rap, techno and pop.
Does this call into question almost everything we are trying to ultimately attain?
Could this be audio's equivalent of Martin Luther's 1517 posting of The Ninety-Five theses at Wittenberg?
As for those ultra high resolution systems that can somehow still remain forgiving with poor recordings, well, I’m still looking.
Obviously it’s going to be your own personal call should you find such a system. We can’t know just what you may deem "ultra high resolution" and what you personally will find "forgiving."
But that said, when I think of high resolution and forgiving in the sense of most tracks and genre tends to sound great, I think of the Joseph Audio speakers, which have just that reputation among many listeners, myself included. They manage to combine both a modern "wow" level of clarity and detail, but delivered with such grain-free purity in the highs that it allows the ears to relax. And they combine that clarity with a richness, warmth and low end punch that makes them really satisfying across all sorts of musical genres. IMO.
I use the JA Perspectives but also some other speakers (including Thiel 2.7s). I personally find my system allows almost all tracks to sound satisfying. Of course the character of the different recordings varies quite a lot, but I almost never feel disappointed. The system manages to extract a sense of liveliness and beauty out of most recordings. (And I listen to tons of modern music too, including modern pop, EDM, electronica, the occasional country, whatever...)
It sounds, though, like you are mostly satisfied with your Tannoys?
When he says few know this transformative truth, he's talking about me, who knows it. You, it seems, do not
^^^ Right on cue: that's a wonderful example of the poo-poo I was referencing . As anyone here would have noticed by now, millercarbon isn't one to miss a chance to lord it over other audiophiles.
look into a Cello preamp if you want to “ fix “ a nasty recording but wire it next to the listening chair. Certainly a new generation of cello like featured preamps are in development with killer remote functionality... my REF5se will just have to do.... for now
@douglas_schroeder , i have owned the Wilson Watt Puppy, $$$$ Von Schweikerts, Revels, JBLs, TADs and maggies over the years.
My physician shed his $$$$$ Wilsons for the Tekton Moab last year. I have heard it plenty of times at his place and got severely jaw dropped. I just don't have a A/B test for it at my place with my gear. If i had an ounce of space left in my house, i would get that speaker without blinking twice.
Current speakers are the Adante floorstanders, Maggie 20.7 and the TADs. Currently, I have the Adantes paired with GR Research DIY subs and the Luxman C900u+M900u stack. Yes, 30 k of amplification for a speaker i bought for 3k (absurd indeed). It sounds even better than every kind of gear i had paired with Andrew's 80k retail TAD Reference (in certain ways) when i had it at my place.
The Adante eats the Revels and Wilsons i've had for breakfast easy...
Now, repeat after me Doug,
"You can have a cranially challenged creature spend loads and loads of money on R&D for a very long time. He will still come up with a piece of sht. But, you can give a genius like Andrew Jones or Eric Alexander very little money and he will come up with a genius grade speaker"
"But, you can give a genius like Andrew Jones or Eric Alexander very little money and he will come up with a genius grade speaker"
I have heard inexpensive well-regarded Pioneer speakers designed by Andrew Jones. They were not worth $200-300 asking price to me.
As far as Tekton goes, we already have two Tekton Moab threads which is about two threads more than they deserve. They may have their clientele that is enamored with them, but "genius grade speakers" is taking that infatuation a little too far.
$$$$ Von Schweikerts are inferior to Moabs? Sure, go believe that. Not for me. I've heard the best VSs in huge rooms sound exquisite on my types of music LP and CD, orchestral classical and jazz, from any seat in the house. The Moabs are probably on par with my Legacy Signature IIIs and Focuses, different but very good. Unfortunately, I'm looking for a speaker that has a wide listening area. The Double Impacts were on par with most electrostats in that regard with one person speaker sitting centered only. Resolution was on par with 30 year old, well designed speakers. Good value for the money for a new speaker but not even close to VS speakers. The Lumenwhite speakers are superior to the Tektons. Sure the best speakers cost much more, but sometimes one gets what they pay for.
deep_333, you haven't compared the Moab in your home to anything, and you have the Adante working with subs to make it offer even a passable serious floor standing performance. Further, if you did not compare the speakers with the precise same system, then you have no direct comparison. It appears that you used entirely different gear with the other speakers.
That means you have no direct comparisons; at least that is what can be ascertained from what you have shared. Ergo, you have little to nothing in the way of direct comparison. Consequently, your posts are of little value. The hype combined with sarcasm are trotted out in place of actual experience. Here's a piece of wisdom you need to repeat until it sinks in:
It is ONLY when speakers are compared directly, with the same gear, in the same room, that a reasonable judgment can be made as to the absolute performance of each speaker.
Obviously, when you put $30K of pre/amp ahead of it, a speaker will shine brilliantly, at least as far as its capabilities allow. I have done so many times, but that in no way makes the budget speaker somehow a far superior speaker. I have used the Pass Labs XA200.8 Monos (reviewed for Dagogo.com) with speakers such as the Tri-Art Audio Series B 5 Open, which, BTW, at about $5K would in several aspects of performance outperform the Adante. That is an absolute fact, not opinion, as the observation is based on design of the speakers, not subjective assessment.
My conclusion is that you have little to no actual comparison of gear, which is why your posts are loaded with hype. The fact is, you have NO clue how the Moab, and little clue how the Adante ACTUALLY would compare; you pretend you know, which means you are full of the hubris that plagues this hobby. Until you get a couple of speakers side by side, you can make all the claims you want - and it's worth just about zero. If you cannot moderate your arrogance, and admit you have far less experience than you pretend, I am finished discussing with you.
To the community: I am making no absolute judgment of the Moab or Adante, as I have not heard them in my room, nor compared them directly to other speakers. That other speakers such as the Tri-Art 5 Open would likely outperform the Adante in terms of bass, i.e. bass extension, and perhaps preference of bass quality due to being open baffle, should be obvious. If not, please do not open an argument over it, because I am not interested in arguing that observation. :)
@douglas_schroeder , you’re wrong on all counts again Doug.
I am the kinda guy who likes to add and reap the benefits of good subs to a 80k TAD or a Revel or a Wilson or other $$$$speakers out there that claim to be full range. I add subs to a 5k speaker (the Adante), use the same electronics on it that i use on speakers that cost magnitudes more and had a realization that it sounds better than the speaker that costs magnitudes more. You, on the other hand, sound like the kinda guy who would pay 80k for a supposedly "full range" speaker, not add subs and have a inferior listening experience.
I know what a 120k system sounds like in my house. When i stop by my doc’s house and listen to his 4.5k Moab paired with his electronics, i hear everything in his setup that i’m looking for in a system that costs magnitudes more. I don’t have to bring that Moab into my house and A/B it on my gear to certify that it sounds like something that costs magnitudes more.
You sound like the kinda guy who would claim a) there is no difference in competence levels among engineers who design these things and b) there are no diminishing returns in this vulture filled industry. You "get what you pay for" he says!!...Go fool the intellectually challenged goats with fat wallets out there with that crap. I have a feeling that’s your line of work. In fact, you state you have neither heard the Adante or the Moab in a competent setup, but, you’re quick to run your mouth like some all knowing seer eh Doug?
Put 20 engineers in a room. You think all 20 of them have the same aptitude because they went to the same frat, have the same degree and exposure to the industry? No Dougy no, there’s always a genius and a ’non value added’ cretin in that pool, when you’re trying to run a business.
Steve's point, and it's one I've seen mentioned many times previously at
shows and demos, is that better more revealing systems will often only
serve to make most recordings sound worse.
Regarding this comment, I've found that the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial. However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse. So IME some real scrutiny has to be applied to what is considered 'more revealing'!
'It sounds, though, like you are mostly satisfied with your Tannoys?'
I'd say so. The Berkeley's can play almost anything without making me reach for the remote on purely sonic grounds alone. Previous speaker more or less forced me to search for upgrades - mainly with lack of bass or treble issues.
For sure I'd be happy with a pair of loudspeakers that maintained (or even built upon their strengths of cohesiveness and ease) but disappeared (box-wise) a little better.
In particular I'd like to hear some good open baffle designs, or even some maverick designs like the Tekton Moab's or the Ohm Walsh's.
Recently, after years of prejudice, I've taken to have another think about metal drivers and particularly their capabilities in the midrange. Especially after seeing how their use is becoming increasingly common in highly regarded designs such as the likes of the Joseph Audio Pulsars and Linkwitz LX521.4s etc.
@atmasphere,
'I've found that the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial. However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse.'
Earlier today I was playing Matt Monro's The Singer's Singer CD (allegedly the best mastering of his work taken from the best generation tapes available) and frankly some the tracks were barely acceptable on sonic grounds alone.
Some of the songs are simply sublime but great recordings these are not. In particular their bandwidth seemed somewhat compromised, with a less than stellar signal to noise ratio present too.
So I couldn't but wonder whether better speakers (more treble, more bass, a clearer window?) wouldn't just highlight these deficiencies further rather than illuminate their strengths in a better light.
Perhaps, as you say "..the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial." is true.
It would be nice to think that way.
"However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse. So IME some real scrutiny has to be applied to what is considered 'more revealing'!"
Maybe this very important need for careful considered system matching is a kind of consensus we can settle upon.
Perhaps this also goes some way towards explaining why system building can often take a considerable amount time and care, and not to mention - money.
A wrong step, however exalted and recommended it might be, can easily lead to eventual dissatisfaction if it brings along with it it's own 'editorial' preferences.
As @prof said earlier, real progress in understanding can easily get hampered by an increasingly vague and personalised description which itself becomes subject to an increasingly wider range of interpretation.
Largely relevant only to its originator.
No wonder they don't award any Pulitzer prizes for audio journalism.
Not when the limits of language itself will inevitably drag us back into the realms of subjective interpretation.
It's an unfortunate fact of the human condition that experience translated into words and back into experience seems to incur even more losses than any analogue to digital to analogue conversion.
Recently, after years of prejudice, I’ve taken to have another think about metal drivers and particularly their capabilities in the midrange.
I can understand the trepidation and prejudice. I’ve experienced it in the past too. My overriding first criteria is that my system sound "organic" - wood like wood, flesh like flesh - rather than cold, sterile and having an electronic or metallic quality.
I’ve long had Spendor S3/5s and an even older pair of Thiel 02 speakers, which were a plain box speaker Thiel sold before going all time/phase coherent. It uses paper drivers/soft dome. Both those speakers just exemplify the "organic" sound quality I love.
For me it was the Hales Transcendence speakers back in the late 90’s that blew some of my expectations out of the water regarding metal drivers. I ended up with the Hales Transcendence 5 speakers and they were so rich, timbrally colorful, and relaxed. I still actually use Hales speakers for my home theater for that very quality.
What was interesting for me was upon listening to the Joseph speakers, instantly recognizing a similar quality to the Hales - a richness of timbral color with a particularly smooth, grain-free sound. Both use the similar looking Seas midrange/woofer drivers, so it’s hard for me not to intuit there is something about the quality of those drivers bringing something to the party.
Any lingering prejudiced against metal drivers was removed when I got the Thiel 3.7 and currently 2.7 speakers in my system, using Thiels final in-house designed aluminum drivers. When driven my by CJ amps the sound is lush and organic. There isn’t a hint of metal anywhere I can detect in the sound.
@glupson, what do you mean "By now, we know"? Do you mean both Jekyll and Hyde? I, personally, have never heard the Pioneer BS22 LR. But, i have seen them sold on either amazon or walmart.com at 80 bucks for the pair. It could be someone’s bar bill on a Friday afternoon. I suppose you were using that speaker in your comment as an example to imply that stuff made by A. Jones is a let down perhaps? How about this....You should give the fabulous engineer who designed your fabulous speakers 80 bucks to work with. You may be able to bask in the glory of a crapbox he gives you for 80 bucks.
@fleschler , my comment never said the Moabs sound better than the Von Schweikerts. There's a reason i had the Schweikerts and they are designed by some very competent guys. But, you pay for it dearly. If you have a large treated space and did justice to it, they are in a class of their own. I gave them to my son as a housewarming gift and have not heard them for 3 years. In essence, my comment was trying to emphasize that the Moabs are an absolute steal at 4.5k and play ball against a lotta stuff that costs magnitudes more. There's a reason my buddy shed his Wilsons for it.
I am extremely thankful to guys like A.Jones, Eric A and maybe Danny Richie too for coming up with stuff at charity prices that could bring more music lovers into this (especially the newer generation). Either way, It's time for this tiny group of silly old pompous goats running a phallus measurement contest in forums like these to move on in life.
So if it’s the case that audio gear isn’t necessarily too good for the product, but that careful and due consideration MUST be applied before any major upgrade to avoid disappointment then some kind of personal strategy might be advisable.
We certainly don't want products that exercise unwanted editorial pressures upon our desired musical message.
The initial premise?
’My overriding first criteria is that my system sound "organic" - wood like wood, flesh like flesh - rather than cold, sterile and having an electronic or metallic quality.’
Absolutely the first criteria I would automatically use to assess any driver from the one in my smartphone / iPad / TV / Hi-Fi system etc.
Far too many speakers seem to fall at this preliminary step. From the budget all the way to the highest of the high end.
Stage 1?
’It uses paper drivers/soft dome. Both those speakers just exemplify the "organic" sound quality I love.’
This is what my current Tannoy speakers provide in spades, as did my Rega’s and the previous Tannoy’s.
Stage 2?
’they were so rich, timbrally colorful, and relaxed.’
Hopefully this is what my next speakers will do even better than the Berkeley’s. Even cheap metal drivers can do good things with timbre, even if those might lack a certain refinement.
’Both use the similar looking Seas midrange/woofer [metal] drivers, so it’s hard for me not to intuit there is something about the quality of those drivers bringing something to the party.’
The promise of enhanced clarity without pain might mean a possible step up from the tried and tested organic paper drivers as used by Tannoy, Wilson, Sonus Faber, Rega, JBL, ATC etc.
From SEAS : "These cones feature extremely high stiffness along with good internal damping. SEAS Excel Magnesium cone drivers are world renowned for their high definition, low distortion and sound reproduction."
Visited a friend recently, who has a grand piano in her music room. Listened for about an hour, noticed what makes it sound real. Timbre at all frequencies, all notes. Percussiveness. Sustain, damping pedal effects, different sound played pianissimo to forte. Listened to her husband play a hammered dulcimer. Listened to a street jazz band without amplification, paying attention to cymbals, drum rim shots, the difference between a floor tom and a kick, etc. Went home and equalized my Boston Acoustics A-150 speakers in my room, with thick curtains behind them, a throw rug under them, and a piece of wood under the front to lean them back, so as to more closely approximate time alignment. Very satisfying. All drivers are paper, except for the soft dome tweeter. My eq started with roughing it with a stereo 10-band equalizer, realtime analyzer, pink noise, and calibrated mic. Then, critical listening for several hours, with micro-tweaks.These speakers are stuffed full of Dacron pillow stuffing, and have automotive felt underlayment from around all the drivers to the edge of the cabinet front, with the grille in place. I would not build speakers with this configuration, but it is what I happen to have at the moment. A Denon receiver, vintage nineties, drives them. Point is, well-recorded piano music (Sheffield lab, Mayorga) sounds pretty darn real. Startling, actually. My guitar, recorded with the same mic, sounds like my guitar, sans alteration. My wife's speaking voice, ditto. Acoustic jazz, much better than it has a right to sound. Good enough for an entire evening of listening, with no fatigue.
By "By now, we know..." I meant that by now some of us have read your posts and relized that you do have very vivid imagination. We almost got worried it is sliding into illusion, delusion, and hallucination territory.
The Pioneer speakers I mentioned were, in fact, two different models. One was https://www.stereophile.com/content/pioneer-sp-bs41-lr-loudspeaker which I had not heard by the time I quoted this review to a friend of mine. He went on to buy a model up (floorstanding) with inscription A. Jones on the back, too. It was to be a guarantee of performance. My friend is not the one to change equipment often, closer to barely ever, but within a month those speakers ended up tucked behind some door never to be connected again. They are still there. Out of curiosity, I bought this speaker from Stereophile review. We thought that bigger model might have simply been inferior to standmount so it was cheap enough to compare for fun. They were donated to my mechanic’s garage, sitting high up under the ceiling. Admittedly, we did not try those speakers with tens of thousands of dollars equipment, but that is probably not what a designer would have expected when designing them. In any case, I do not doubt that Andrew Jones is a good speaker designer and I did hear two pairs of TADs (standmount and floorstander, I do not know model designation) that sounded wonderful. I believe he designed them, too but may be wrong. It is just that his venture into very low price speakers was overwhelmingly underachieving even for that price. Somewhat older and similarly priced Infinity speakers were a few galaxies above them. That Stereophile review is to a degree exactly 180 degrees away from reality
@glupson, ah yes, the infamous "we"... the disgruntled glupson Jekyl and a glupson Hyde, the pair that keeps coming back...
Alrighty then! Have a great time with your infinity speakers (galaxies above). My condolences on the stereophile review that fooled ya and made you flush 80 dollars down the drain! Thanks for sharing this great tidbit of information. I wish you both great luck on your future endeavors...
I thought this thread was about whether having a more revealing system is a bad goal. Personally I think that is the ramblings of someone desperate to sound relevant.
Take a b-grade band, genre unimportant. Playing in a great acoustic space will not make them sound worse they will sound better.
Resolution is far more likely to reveal interesting nuance. A bad system will make everything sound bad. A great system can make even some pretty awful stuff sound okay.
"Visited a friend recently, who has a grand piano in her music room. Listened for about an hour, noticed what makes it sound real. Timbre at all frequencies, all notes. Percussiveness. Sustain, damping pedal effects, different sound played pianissimo to forte."
Time and time again piano crops up when evaluating the authenticity of any playback system, as does listening to live unamplified music.
You're fortunate in that you have access to a wide range of live sound.
"My guitar, recorded with the same mic, sounds like my guitar, sans alteration. My wife's speaking voice, ditto."
Again, live sound. Again, great reference points. On the occasion I've heard a live sound recording played back through speakers I'm always impressed by its immediacy and dynamics. It's the kind of thing that I've rarely heard in any commercial recordings.
I'm not sure why modern loudspeakers no longer have felt surrounding the drivers the way they did with the tweeter for example on the LS3/5 for example.
It sounds like you're getting great results with well recorded music but I hope you don't mind if I ask how your system is with some of the more standard pop /rock recordings in your collection?
Think about this... If a playback system is low distortion, then it is high resolution. The contrapositive statement is: If a system is low resolution, then it is high distortion.
I regularly listen to "poorly recorded music" through a low distortion system and am amazed at how good it sounds. One of my favorites is "1967 Billboard Top Rock'n'Roll Hits." Really, I am slack jawed listening to the music. It sounds fantastic!
Note the common error of logic made with the above statement: If a system is high resolution, then it is low distortion. This is NOT true.
This helps explain much of the seemingly contradictory statements made in this thread.
If I was forced to listen to contemporary music for last 5 years which is played on the most popular stations then investing into HiFi which is revealing would probably be waste of money. You can't force sunshine on a cloudy gloomy day. However my music tastes are wider and go way back in history which consists a richer concoction of music then the above given example so I would prefer a more revealing system which for instance, recognizes the tone of the piano (which changes in use and surroundings) and can tell the difference and give correct tonality between wound steel strings and nylon treble strings from two guitars playing on the same track.
If a system is high resolution, then it is low distortion. This is NOT true.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes in GENERAL is fact it is true, You are trying to make up your opinions as facts. High Res = Deep soundstage/ frequences NOT ROLLED OFF/life like vocals/rich bass, clean/clear/NOT WARM,, REPEAT NOT WARM. Warm = distortion and or flatening of freqencies,,which I HATE. My system is high res,,been spending $$$$$$$ on upgrades and its paid off, big time.
I can not post a latest YT vid, as i just had hernia and 2 other surgies, When I geta chance I will post a vid with high res/LOW DISTORTION musical imagery. I have a few more upgrades in the works. Paul New Orleans
In my experience with both lower end and upper end systems, distinction between steel and nylon strings is not necessarily an exacting measure of a system's absolute capacity. Even lower end HiFi systems can distinguish the difference between steel and nylon strings. Back when I built $5K rigs I could always hear (but not nearly as clearly as with upper end rigs) the difference between them. It takes no great feat to do so. Similar with vibes versus Xylophone; there is a gross enough distinction that they can be identified with lower end systems. This is not a good measure of the rig being extreme in terms of resolution, imo.
The proper question is to what degree can a system do so? That takes head to head comparison, and all the hype and promotion here does not answer it. My Kirksaeter Silverline 220 Speakers, which I used (sold a while back) in a second system, with it's twin 7.5" woofers and 7.5" midrange, would have likely made a very nice comparison to the Elac Adante, and may have outperformed the Adante in some respects. But, regardless of the designer(s) and manufacturing, only a comparison head to head would tell. :)
"If a system is high resolution, then it is low distortion. This is NOT true.
This helps explain much of the seemingly contradictory statements made in this thread."
I think we could say that good system building can be a tricky business.
Describing good system building seems to be even trickier. Even professional journalists often wind up sounding confused.
It has to be a question of balance because if you imagine a system combining the best ribbon tweeters with mediocre bass drivers joined by a poorly configured crossover it might well offer amazing resolution, but only at the odd particular frequency.
The rest of its frequency range might well be noticeably distorted.
There’s also the question of room effects which might be significant for some users.
To keep the illusion of listening to to a facsimile of real musicians there must be as little as possible that draws attention away from the illusion.
Assuming of course that the recording is a decent one in the first place.
Even so, that doesn’t explain why so many high priced (high resolution?) systems often sound so poorly integrated.
Is that the fault of the equipment, the room, or even the recording itself?
I still want to believe the explanation given by @atmasphere earlier that a genuine high resolution product must not only be able to resolve more detail, it must do it without adding anything superfluous at the sane time.
So assembling a good system might just be a question of finding and combining those rare products.
I think it’s pretty obvious that most loudspeakers are not only guilty of the sin of ommision but also of commission.
Perhaps here lies the problem?
@douglas_schroeder,
"But, regardless of the designer(s) and manufacturing, only a comparison head to head would tell. :)"
I don’t think anyone would disagree with that.
I once compared 2 different integrated amplifiers together and was surprised (and given the differences in price not a little disappointed) by what I heard.
Once adjusted for volume they were virtually industinguishable. And that wasn’t even done by the prescribed instant switching method by relay.
With all of the various loudspeakers I have heard no two have sounded alike.
The Tannoy Revolution 3s might share a similar signature to the Tannoy Berkeley’s, but the difference in scale and ease of sound is still blatant.
Everyone knows that the Adante was a flawed design. Released to much heralding, look how short a time it remained in the Elac line-up. It was discontinued because it wasn't selling (duh), and it wasn't selling because people were listening to it and comparing it to other similarly priced speakers. If you're going to vaunt a "giant-killer" (a dubious concept at best), at least pick a half-decent model to promote in the first place.
What if you have a high resolution system in a crappy room? There will be distortion in the sound from comb filtering, modes, etc. Or a speaker with a non-flat frequency spectrum. The resolution can be high but the sound is distorted. These equal high resolution and high distortion. I am using the broadest meaning of distortion, not just THD. If the sound wave produced at the listening chair is different than the recorded sound wave, then it is distorted.
"Flawed" is a pretty harsh assessment of a budget speaker. It had severe fiscal limitations, a price point to hit. Some slack has to be given for that. True, the hype has been over the top. I certainly was not overly impressed when hearing the bookshelf Elac that people were falling over themselves to make hyperbolic statements regarding the performance. It was another bookshelf. One that did impress me duly was the Ryan Speakers bookshelf model.
@millercarbon-I don't understand your comment concerning background music speakers. I assume that you were not writing about Von Schweikerts, Lumenwhites or Legacy speakers. My Signature IIIs in my second system kills the Elac Andante-no contest. Sure, it's a $6,500 or $7,500 in its current iteration. The Tekton I heard was not for me as it is too limiting in listening width, a one person speaker, which is fine if that is what you want it to do. Same with Quad 57s-they can be upgraded to excellent quality but lack dynamics and bass no matter what one does to it.
The other problem I find in many high end system is poor matching of components and bad cabling (which can cost as much as the equipment). I can play electric 78s and mono LPs and derive great musicality despite sonic limitations. No one comes to my home (pre-Covid) and said anything about my analog sound. Usually, they couldn't tell it wasn't a digital format since record noise was absent just the music was heard. The worst problem I have with poor recordings is compressed sound (don't get me started about phony stereo-95% of the time bad). Weird balances, frequency anomalies, missing highs and/or bass are not always detrimental to musical enjoyment but the better the system, the better the communication of the music despite the recording faults.
Purchasing high end sounding speakers used is generally a great idea. There is competition for the Tekton brand at similar prices. There are always trade-offs but I would rather own older VS speakers at the same price (or my current Legacy speakers) than Tektons as I desire a wide seating/listening area with big dynamics and near electrostat quality mids..
Well, the addition of six subs most definitely changes the game for a bookshelf speaker. Does it magically make the Elac perform as a far higher end speaker? Only relatively, not inherently. That's one of the largest problems this community has, a belief in magical transformation of products, such that they somehow jump to a higher level of performance than better gear if only the right ancillary components are selected. It's wishful thinking, and not a good way to build superior systems. Such rigs typically have major shortcomings.
The addition of multiple larger drivers to jack up LF is a valid way to get more out of a speaker. I do similar when I add the Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subwoofers, with one active and one passive 15" driver per sub, to the already prodigiously equipped Legacy Audio Whisper DSW Clarity Edition, which has its native eight 15" woofers. The result? An even more prodigious performance, with presence and articulation in the bass at low level that seems preternatural.
Now, If I were to put in the modest Insignia 2-way speakers that were all the rage years ago (I have a pair I have kept for the fun of it) with those subs, would that magically make them perform on a par with the Whisper? One would have to be completely delusional to think so. Would they be "game changer" in the sense that they somehow were doing as the Whisper does? No, not at all. That's the kind of game that a Chinztiphile plays in an attempt to save lots of money, and they are only fooling themselves. That video is of a gimmick that appears designed to showcase subs, and kudos to REL, as it does. It would be a terribly compromised solution for the audiophile to set up the Elac speaker in such a fashion.
YMMV, and I am not interested in arguing my observations. :)
@twoleftears , the Adante is "flawed"? I guess that’s why it won EISA’s product of the year award over speakers that cost magnitudes more. All the guys at EISA must be stupid too. Have you actually heard it with competent gear in a decent room dude? Or are you another one of the prophesizing yappers on this forum who never heard it? ."it may sound like"..."it should sound like...".... yappers and their prophesies!
The Adantes were selling like hot cakes all over Asia (more intelligent customers there, i suppose). The reason it was stalling a bit in the US was because Elac entered the US market at a entry level price (the Debuts for a coupla hundred bucks). Nobody had ever heard of Elac before over here. When the price got higher, dudes were stalling thinking it’s a entry level speaker brand. Make Revel release a speaker for 200 bucks. Examine how many 20k speakers they sell after that.....It has a lot do with posturing.....Either way, the only reason it was discontinued was because Elac Germany didn’t want A. Jones’s concentric driver designs taking over their ’higher end’ offerings (a.k.a steal their thunder). They had many of their pricier offerings with the JET tweeters to sell. They also forced him to do something with a JET tweeter (Carina? whatever). Goofy move.
Another unique coupled cavity design like the Adante will come back from Andrew at some point in the future (If Elac Germany isn't too butthurt about losing their thunder), priced at 30k & above. Watch the audiophools unload their wallet when that happens. Audiophools will only get down on their knees and bow down in respect when they see a high price tag. Observe these audiophools bow down in respect to an absolute piece of crap speaker because they saw a high price tag somewhere. It happens everyday....So, a charity price release often gets no respect no matter how good it is (from clowns who’ve never even heard it in the first place).... Andrew should stop doing charity and set the price at 30k and above. Why stop at 30k... make it 60k or 80k....the audiophool clown car will bow down for longer...it will be a lovely sight.
"Either way, the only reason it was discontinued was because Elac Germany didn’t want A. Jones’s concentric driver designs taking over their ’higher end’ offerings (a.k.a steal their thunder). They had many of their pricier offerings with the JET tweeters to sell. They also forced him to do something with a JET tweeter (Carina? whatever). Goofy move."
That is quite some insider's knowledge of ELAC's business practices. Member of the board of directors? Chief Operating Officer?
"Audiophools will only get down on their knees and bow down in respect when they see a high price tag."
Straight from the person who is using really expensive amplifier to run the best speakers on Earth and has bought some of the most-respected, and far from the most affordable, speakers in the past. What do they call such people? Converts? You know, those who discover the opposite of what they used to be and then strongly argue their cause against all the other sinful souls.
I want my systems to sound as close to real music in real space as possible. This can be done fairly affordably if one DIY and knows what they are doing for checkbook types I sadly feel they may never get such performance no matter what they spend. This hobby is more about knowledge and less about spending. The more you know the better the end result.
"I want my systems to sound as close to real music in real space as possible. This can be done fairly affordably if one DIY and knows what they are doing"
"This hobby is more about knowledge and less about spending. The more you know the better the end result."
Wise words. Care is needed in system building and price is very little guarantee of success as anyone who has attended a show will have discovered.
There's never been a better time to get into audio. Some much good gear at reasonable prices and so much real world information available.
Hopefully with sites like this there will be no more need for anyone to blindly follow reviewers and throw their good money after bad.
I tried that and it didn't work. Not finding the sound I wanted led to far too many compromises which soon proved unsatisfactory.
As you say, knowledge is important. Perhaps knowledge of exactly what you're looking for and unwillingness to compromise on that is the most important.
Sometimes just learning about yourself can take years.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
