ahh ... ok i see it as this:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpreamps/54/
note that this article is from 1995, not that there isn't plenty of relevancy here. just thought it worth noting.
hj |
Thanks all. After posting I decided to go in the direction you're advising, so great validation to know other minds agree. I see no reason to not at least audition a nice 2 ch pre and have fun comparing it to the Emotiva. Will need to post a comparison test at that time.
Avgoround - am curious - I think this is the first time I've heard anyone describe a Thiel speaker as "laid back". I understand you qualified that as meaning for HT, but can you explain?
HJ |
Thanks all. I'm not going the theater route, though I'm sure I'll have fun with that at some point. At this point separates make the most sense for me as I'm trying to keep it all really flexible - I've got a DAC and a passive 2-ch pre on the way. That's the plan ... for now:-) |
Avo-
What good passive pres have you listened to?
By properly oversimplifying the initial signal do you mean properly preparing the input signal for the input of the amp? If not what do you mean by oversimplifying?
I do think I'll experiment, but am guessing already that the quality of a passive that I'm looking for will be too expensive. I'll probably start with a Placette Passive Linestage to at least see if I like it better than the Emotiva and then go from there by comparing with a good active in the same price range ($1500 used most likely).
Thanks,
Hazyj |
Avo - the stereophile url you provided was incomplete. can you try again? thanks. |
Am very happy to find people having 'fun' with this thread, and am more than ready to jump into the melee or would be if I didn't have equipment comparisons to get to ...
As stated earlier I was going to do some testing with a Placette passive pre and compare with an active (a Forte Audio Model 2). So far inconclusive except for the clear fact that there is no "dynamic" rolloff of any sort whatsoever, and I see no reason why there would be given Placette's attempts to prevent it. It's been nothing but a pleasure to listen to the passive in concert with Pass Labs x250 and Vandersteen 2Cs. If you doubt it, give me some source material to listen to that should convince me. I want to hear the rolloffs but simply can't - highs are well extended and bass is beautiful and as "dynamic" as is delivered by the Forte.
Avo - you've written a lot and I've enjoyed most of it and appreciate quite a bit of the writing. I'm getting plenty out of it as well, but always with a keen eye on the lookout for extreme subjective commentary. There is a lot, but that's true with most of the posts here. I find that to be useful at times as well. However you never even tried to answer the question I posed to you about your claim that "Not properly oversimplifying the initial signal before the amp section, will cost you in that area." There's no way for me to understand what you mean, either as an engineer or an wanna-be-audiophile. "Oversimplifying" just isn't a word that means anything at all to me. Can you at least try to explain this comment you made? |
Zd543 says "But the argument here isn't passive vs active, its the Placette vs Forte Model 2. Each component has its own sound, regardless of design"
I'm going to play devil's advocate here to see what the responses might be, as I find this to be one of the big topics in the audiophile community. It interests me greatly and I'd like to know others' feelings as well ...
I believe your opinion is the Placette Passive "has it's own sound", and my D.A. response is that I'd expect that sound to be that of the source. If you tell me that no, the passive adds or subtracts something then I'd ask for an objective if not factual basis for that statement.
Where is this all going? In my opinion this is going in the direction of asking "just what IS the sound of the source"? I don't think that's been adequately addressed anywhere I've been reading. Why? Because this sound is dependent upon the recording specifics, the other components and the listening environment. I don't think it's too bold to state that the only way to reproduce the true sound of the source is to have the vocals, instruments and venue almost perfectly reproduced (whatever that means) in your listening room. Is that even possible when most audiophiles (I believe) listen through only the two channels in their own home listening environments?
My true opinion about all this (losing the devil's advocate point of view now) is that for almost all of us extremely analytic listeners of different recordings of various musical genres it doesn't matter! You either do one or the other of these ...
1. spend all your time and $$ trying to reproduce the sound of the source - a very expensive endeavor that's not possible because every recording is different and a single system just cannot truely reproduce each soundstage & venue recorded. Even the most expensive and/or well engineered systems can only come close to truely reproducing SOME recordings and venues but will fall far short of others ( though in a pleasant sort of way). Or ...
2. spend only enough time and $$ needed to achieve compromises that result in an enjoyable listening experience for as many recordings of your preferred musical tastes and recordings as possible. Will it be as enjoyable as approach #1? That's completely up to the listener to decide.
A closing question as a case in point: do some audiophiles prefer tubes and vinyl because those technologies and approaches give them the feeling of the most accurate sound reproduction or is it because they simply like the sound? Does it even matter?
|
Avo-
Yes - I understand now. "Amplifying" makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the clarification. |
Zd542-
I find your response to my devil's advocate question to be neither objective nor factual. I do understand the opinions quite well, but doubt they move this conversation forward in any meaningful way.
Your over-confident approach to this topic is misplaced in my opinion. You can't listen to all equipment in all combinations. You don't know objectively that all equipment has a noticeable effect on the "sound" of source reproduction. Your (apparent) opinion that all equipment has it's own "sound" implies that someone somewhere (you?) can definitely hear that "sound". I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences. That does not imply that all equipment must contribute a noticeable difference.
There is no physical law or set of laws that necessitate that a piece of audio equipment must contribute it's own noticeable (to the ear, not the oscilloscope) "sound", but you seem to have the opinion that such laws exist. It's a simple (but meaningless) statement to say that most equipment will contribute its own "sound", but another entirely different statement to profess that all equipment has a "sound" that is noticeable. |
At least 4 problems with your response:
1. You appear to have missed the main point of my post.
2. You're guessing incorrectly about my experience with the subject matter.
3. You aren't being either objective or factual.
4. You continue to approach the subject from an inappropriately over-confident and apparently authoritative point of view.
Fleshing this out ...
1. The point of my post was three-fold: a.) prove that all components necessarily add or subtract something to/from the "sound" & b.) start a discussion regarding "just what IS the sound of the source?" & c.) reopen the topic of what listeners hear and want to hear. You appear to have addressed c.) but ignored the others.
2. 24 years ago I spent hundreds if not thousands of hours listening to high-end audio equipment throughout Los Angeles and the Bay Area. I met and had many discussions with "audiophiles", dealers and manufacturers, went to audio shows, read what I could, and took a lot of time mixing and matching several pieces of equipment in my own system. During my schooling/training as a physicist and electrical engineer I studied semiconductors and circuitry, built simple amplifiers, mastered priciples of sound propagation and materials science. I then sold everything I owned and swore off all of it because I couldn't afford it, and I needed to concentrate on other things. I've been away from high-end audio for 24 years and only since May this year have I even looked to see what was new and what has remained the same. I've never heard of some of these new companies and I'm only now learning about multi-channel systems, hence my questions about multi-channel pre-amps.
3. I'm not sure what to write here but I'll take a stab at it... You don't seem to want to be involved in an objective discussion, or maybe you don't understand what an objective discusssion is. That's hard to believe so I don't think that's what's going on, but you made a mistake by writing "that statement is pure speculation on your part" regarding my statement "I realize we can hear differences between even the most highly regarded components, and some of us are better than others at hearing those differences." Do you realize that I'm stating this as a fact which I do in fact know? It is a fact that audio listeners can hear differences between components. It is a fact that some listeners are better than others at hearing differences. It is a fact that I realize this. I don't understand how this can be confusing to you and/or why you would waste time arguing the point.
4. You seem to think you're educating me and twice now I think you state that you're helping me. You appoint yourself as an authority, but I don't find any reason to recognize that self-appointment. I do recognize that you've probably been involved in high-end audio for quite some time and that you've probably listened to a lot of equipment. That means something to me, but not much wrt the current topic. You did help me earlier in the thread wrt a question or two I asked about multi-channel pre-amps. Thank you, but if you read closely you realize that I came to the same conclusion with regard to trying out a separate 2 channel preamp prior to your advice. |
my previous post is addressed to Zd542 only. sorry if there was any confusion about this. |
You miss the point that I am not asking YOU any question at all directly but was opening up a topic for discussion in a forum. I think my questions are good topics for discussion with people who really want to contribute rather than argue or just promote themselves (remember I NEEDED to list my experience for you - i did not want to do that but you seemed to need the info). Clearly I'm opening up the topic in the wrong forum though. I know mine are not home theater questions. That's fine - I'm still curious about how people might respond so I'll probably try to open the topic elsewhere.
I make no claims to being an expert about audiophilia which makes all this more fun for me. I do have the experience as mentioned albeit almost all of it was 20+ years ago. I'm learning about changes since then and remember a lot of things that don't seem to have changed at all.
For what it's worth I most certainly did master the subjects I mentioned and many more I studied. Does that surprise you? I'd guess that at least half the members on audiogon have studied engineering and science and am absolutely certain that many also have graduate degrees in these disciplines. I make no claims to being the smartest or most experienced or most accomplished here. I don't care if I'm not even of average intelligence here, but I am proud of what I've learned and accomplished. I've put in a lot of work and have often done well like many others here I'm sure. I have no idea how to design the best pre-amp - why in the world would i know such a thing and why would you ask that question? Can I figure out how to design the best pre-amp? I don't know, but I certainly know how to start to find out how if I wanted to. I've learned quite a bit about pre-amp design over the past 2 weeks. Is that unexpected? Does it matter?
I need to move on from this - you seem to just want to argue so I don't see any resolution and doubt you really want to discuss the topic I was trying to open up. No hard feelings. Thanks for the discussion, but let's just go our separate ways please. |
Zd542-
Not worth my time or anyone else's to write here under "false pretenses". Not even sure what you mean by that, and no wish or need to argue and restate what's already been written.
All-
Thanks to everyone for helping me get back into the fray. I think what I got most from this thread is that there's a lot of enthusiasm for multi-channel audio/HT, there's a lot of enthusiasm for Oppo products (I'll be keeping my eyes open the next time I need a new piece for my system), and there seems to be quite a few audiogoners out there using pieces of their multi-channel system strictly for music listening. I'm still not sure what my system will look like down the road, but this all helps to get me up n runnin again after so many years. Thanks! |
WTF? I don't know where this is coming from and have no intention of trying to figure you out. All I wanted to do was start a thread to get some help on something I knew almost nothing about: multi-channel and HT equipment. People responded. The topic changed somewhat which appears to be business as usual across Audiogon forums. As the topic changed I realized I had more questions that I thought people might enjoy discussing. Meanwhile you argue and argue some more and make misguided/baseless accusations. You're clearly angry about something. How about you get some help and try to keep your problems from messing up the potential for good dialogue here? |
