Oh before I forget...how was the 20.2 experience? |
Cdw,
Yeah, I heard the system when it was considered complete. It was considered complete enough to demo to outsiders for fundraising and as demonstration of next generation MC, beyond anything on the market then or now.
Phil |
Cdw,
How was the 20.2 experience? Interesting, entertaining, but thoroughly unconvincing as an exercise in music fidelity. The range of recordings was excellent. There was nothing amiss in the choice of recordings, the source gear or the amplification. Nor the room. The room sounded pretty good acoustically. The MC experience was an interesting divergence from reality, not progress as fidelity, IMO, but clearly a refashioning of sound that can seduce many people on grounds other than fidelity. I was scientifically fascinated, audiophile-intrigued, but sonically & musically underwhelmed. Others with me who were MC adherents thought is was beyond great, but close questioning revealed they weren't judging on any criteria for fidelity. It's pretty easy to get even experienced people excited with big sound, even if it's divergent from fidelity.
Phil |
Cd wAllace. Wake up ans smell the coffee! |
Phil,
Fidelity? It's why I listen to surround.
What I hear when I listen to a surround system is all that garbage two channel leaves in front of the performers is stripped away giving me access to the instrument in a way that two channel cannot. Detail and texture that borderlines on "real", to a much greater degree than the thin and over detailed 180 degree two channel presentation.
Sibilance once part of the recorded performance dissappears
strident strings become rich and full.
The ability to hear behind added delay and reverb on a singers voice provides me with an insite to the performance, a bloom two channel guys pay 6 figures for, I have never heard with a two channel system without cheating with the acoustics (I did the cheating), especially below $10K. The dramatic environment changes from one disc to another and a sense of scale dipoles give but without the homogenous tendencies.
Of course I get the benefits of being included in the soundstage and control of the soundstage presentation, very powerful psych-acoustic effect. Then their is the fill between the speakers when percussion instruments are used as they project much like the do in real life at the listener when mic'd that way.
So I am wondering exactly what fidelity I am missing?
What details my $40,000 two channel system is also not providing? A more refined system that mimics what top studios use to make recording decisions on.
We are on extreme end of the philosophical scale, you like the idea of simple, no crossover no extra goodies, I embrace the opposite, digital crossovers for each sub, multi-channels with multi element crossovered speakers.
Control the signal. The result....the same? We both enjoy our systems this way.
As for delay and timbre's, my system is consistent you can listen to a simple voice or instrument decay without a shimmer or pulse. The amplifiers and speakers I use are as phase accurate and harmonically balanced as I can find.
Speakers are flat period, what hurts with two channel helps with surround.
I'm sorry Thomlinson Holman let you down, really me more than you...
So what Fidelity was missing? Could the fact the surround doesn't allow you to hone in on one aspect of the recording as easily be the perception it is not as clear. Could you have assimilated all that grunge carried by two channel systems to the listener as detail? Do you have time to expand? You have a great deal of experience so magical, or holistic isn't going to be good enough.
Describe the physical event that either ques you in to timing errors or reinforces proper timing. What keeps you awake with surround? Could High Frequency hearing loss be the problem for the percieved lack of focus? You need that artificial edge created by two channel to make it sound clear?
I don't know what's the issue? What Fidelity is gone, because my surround system gives me more. |
Ok Phil...we're getting somewhere. Enlighten me...how would you charactorize "fidelity"? Can you pinpoit where MC loses it?
I think it would help me and others out if we can somehow "think how you would think". |
Ecclectique..."wake up and smell the coffee"...Track #2 from George Duke's album entitled "Cool". Great album; I would highly recommend it. IT SOUNDS SPECTACULAR IN MC DOLBY PROLOGIC II. :0
Sorry, it slipped! |
Phil...it sounds as if the 20.2 experience had everything IYO except fidelity. Is this a true statement? |
Cdw,
How I think? Hear how I hear is more like it.
I'm a bit into my sixth decade on the planet. My high frequency hearing is well-preserved for my age. My earliest memory of hifi goes back to 1956, when most hifi systems were still monaural and tubes ruled. I also could sit by my Mom's Fada table radio with its tubes ablaze and dial in pre-Castro Havana cha-cha on the shortwave, or feel daring listening to cold war jabbering between classical music swells from East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Moscow. Dad's '49 Buick and '51 Oldsmobile had tubes in the dash and a paper cone speaker. It sounded great in the midrange compared to what was to come. Someone on the block bought a Chrysler with a turntable in the front seat. There was live music every week even in small towns like where I was located. Soon stereo and tubes, and recordings where engineers were just learning. I was in the hifi business during the whole 4-channel debacle. I investigated contemporary new wave MC with optimism and hoping to like it.
When I was a kid, my school system made regular trips to Philly for the Philadelphia Orchestra youth concerts and some of the regular evening concerts as well, during the school year. I went to every one I could go to, from the time I was 8. So figure it....I was hearing that orchestra during Eugene Ormandy's tenure as music director. He was on the podium for almost every performance. I played instruments in a performance setting. In college I was near Pittsburgh and hence regularly heard the Pittsburgh Symphony, William Steinberg conducting. Later in grad school, it was the Hartford Symphony and then I lived in Boston for an extended time and had a share of season tickets in Symphony Hall and at Tanglewood during Seiji Ozawa's tenure at the BSO. Along the way, being in the northeast where density of live music performance venues is much higher than in California, I heard the full wash of popular music touring figures during about a 25 year span, many in very small venues where I could hear the primary sound.
I've also played music in recording studios, giving me the reference of what happens to a performance on the way to vinyl and CD. I've recorded field performances on a paid basis, further informing understanding of the relationship between what's real and what's recorded. Point is, you are not hearing from an inexperienced person. Most of the MC proponents I meet who try to sell me on this technology have not matched the range of my experiences with live, recorded and reproduced music, let alone my accumulated experience with hifi.
So much for biographical context. You will discount my accumulated experience if you don't agree with what I hear, just as, unless you know you are colorblind, you will tend to trust your own eyes if you see the sky as purple and I say it is blue. I accept this. I don't expect to convince anyone of my (perhaps minority) MC/2C opinion on the basis of an Audiogon post. But I might might make you question yours. More to the point, someone new looking to sort out what they think about this, may find value in this thread.
Fidelity is simple. A person singing has to sound human. An instrument should sound natural and consistent with the experience of hearing it live, whether it is an unmiked cello or Junior Brown's old Fender amp with guit-steel plugged into it. Massed instruments should have both harmony and clash, just as in real circumstances. If the recording was made in a hall, live, I should hear the characteristics of the hall as though I were at or near the mic location, if the miking scheme was simple. If the recording was multi-tracked, multi-miked, overdubbed and the performers were not present simultaneously, then we're already in the realm of artifice and we have no reference for the original sound. We can only possibly surmise whether we're hearing what the recording, mix or mastering engineer intended. In any case, fidelity has to give me a convincing illusion of the intended performance, or convey the character of what the recording, mixdown and mastering engineer captured. Neither a recording alone, a system or individual component can do it by itself.
If you read my prior post to D-Edwards, you know part of what I describe as being more compromised in MC than in proper 2C is "tone." Tone was once commonly understood among hifi enthusiasts, but progressively less so over the last decade. People have been distracted by resolution and detail over tone. Effects, breakdown analysis, picayune critique of details. I find fewer and fewer people listening holistically or even able to comprehend what I mean by that. Headphones in iPods aren't helping. Hifi pushed away from holistic rendering of fidelity in the 1980s and except for a swelling of various underground rebellions, it hasn't really recovered. I blame Krell's debut and embrace by the market as the emblematic inflection point for the devolution of fidelity in hifi. Some other people blame the transistor, the Redbook CD, or the original Dynaco Stereo 120. Maybe line source speakers and power cord obsession too. But Krell was the leading edge of a trend toward atonal but scaled sound reproduction as the signpost for "hifi." Multichannel sound comes from the same roots -- engineers attempting to recreate complex wave behavior through a combination of software logic and dissected propagation. Ugh. The more processing and complexity, the further away we get. People are so confused they can't even discern synthetic from real anymore. I can put music in real tone and dimension in my home with 2 channels.
Many audiophiles today want nothing to do with the actual sound of real instruments and voices. They don't want the true sound of horns with their sometime harshness, output from their hifi. They think a cello or violin are exclusively silky and have never really heard or cared for the full experience of bow-on-string in a close-up performance. Do you think sibilance is never produced by human lips? You'd be wrong. Some rooms are honky and if eq'd flatter sound fake.
Tone is the marker for what's missing in MC. Tone isn't just a matter of frequency response, transient behavior, time or phase coherence, crossovers or not. It's a holistic characteristic wherein all of a note, a sound, a burst accompanies the leading edge. A voice is produced by a body and not just a throat. You hear an entire piano, not just the soundboard and strings. If you don't hear it, I can't point it out to you in an email or a post. If you don't care about it I can't make it important to you by describing it. I can only say that if you think you are hearing it in MC, you most likely aren't, and your references for convincing yourself that you are, are likely insufficient. I won't even judge your hearing -- let's assume it's excellent! Your references for how your mind infers suggestion of fidelity are what's in question when you advocate MC for music as a means for attaining greater fidelity. And I am sure that it goes both ways. What is convincing to you in your current state of mind leads you to believe I don't know real sound either.
That's an impasse and I don't know how to resolve it online. But you asked the original question, and you have my answer!
Phil |
Cdw,
"....IYO..." ???
I don't know "IYO" and until I do, I can't answer your question.
Phil |
IYO - In your opinion. Sorry for the mixup |
It's not accurate to say that 20.2 had "everything except fidelity, in my opinion." It had novelty, it had effects. It wasn't absent any sense of fidelity, but it had much less fidelity than 2C. I was listening to something evangelized as an advancement in fidelity but it sounded regressive instead.
Phil |
If you current system was implimented into a 20.2 system, how would it be. I was assure your system has everything your looking for, including the correct amount of fidelity? Would that system be holistic and up to par? Or are you a triod kind of guy and wouldn't dare expand the hozisons of you system beyond 2 channel.
I guess what I'm getting at is if you system, having all the things MC doesn't and more, where structured in a MC setup, would it still be as good or better. It would be safe to assume that such superior quality multiplied would do nothing but produce more superior, holistic, quality music! My magic chipmunk would love to know! |
Cdw,
I happen use triodes now in my amplification but I have no fanaticism about that topology. With 101db/w/m effciency in my speakers, my big 845 triode power goes pretty far. But it's not all I'm willing to listen to. I also love, for instance, McIntosh MC1201 monoblock SS autoformer amps with 1200 watts each, might even buy a pair.
Would my current system expanded to 20.2 be better? You may have missed a key point of my prior posts. The answer is, "Not likely." Why? Because there would be many more drivers and nothing at all can be *perfectly* matched. There'd be software processing attempting to ham-handedly simulate much more complex wave behavior than the processor and speaker array would be up to. And there'd be too much gear for a domestic environment, to boot. Point is, all those extra drivers reduce TONE and clarity. The software behind the processing is highly imperfect about allocating the systems array of signals. Not to mention that scaling up my 2C system to 20.2 would *dramatically* boost its cost.
I'd be open to expand beyond 2C if I had reason to. However, it doesn't stand to reason that multipying everything I have simply makes it all more so. I could certainly generate more acoustic power, but more subtlety and tone? There's the doubt.
Phil |
Wouldn't you speaker need to be as accurate as possible in order to reproduce the tone...of the recording? Or is it all about the over all tone of the system? We can go back and forth about the format, but I haven't heard you mention anything about the tone of the recording. If the system has its own tone, which dominates the tone of the recording, then where do I hear what the recording is supposed to sound-like? Isn't this the key to fidelity and tone? Or is it a matter of matching components to counterbalance another? You can add the multiple drivers and achieve the intended tone...of the recording...as long as the speakers are accurate. Thats like saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 unless you use a simple calculator. It doesn't matter which calculator you use, if its programmed wrong, you outcome will not be accurate. But if the scientific or basic calculator is programmed correctly, then the outcome will be accurate.
Would you agree Phil? |
Ideally, one builds a system, 2C or otherwise, that does not "add" tone to a recording that doesn't have it, nor delete tone from a recording that does. Certainly, I build my systems that way.
Of course, fidelity is a function of a whole system. A speaker, amp or source alone cannot save it if the remaining components underperform. Balance of factors is essential, since nothing is perfect.
No, I haven't yet found you can add multiple drivers and achieve intended tone if the drivers are accurate. No two drivers are fully matched. Just close. Having more just makes the inconsistencies more audible and disruptive to fidelity.
So no, I don't agree.
Phil |
But this is what I don't get. Accuracy plus accuracy equals accuracy. Accurate speakers plus matching accurate speaker...equals output less than accurate???? Please explain further, if you will. |
Then if no two speakers are exactly alike, just close, when why don't you listen in mono? |
No, Cdw, you're missing my point. Taking one accurate driver and adding another is revealing the error between them. Then do it again, and again, and again, and you begin to have slightly distinct voices. Clarity and tone are the casualties. There are no two exactly matched drivers. This is just one of the many problems with line-source loudspeakers, even in 2C.
Phil |
Some people believe Mono is the highest fidelity medium. I don't. Well-made stereo works with human spatial perception in a way mono nearly completely lacks. Monaural can have terrific tone, but its lack of dimension is too extreme to offer balance of factors. Plus, the supply of mono recordings is limited, and stereo played mono isn't as good.
Phil |
No Phil... I really think you missing the logic behind that statement. If two speakers are measured and found to both be accurate...flat frequency response, among other things.. then where is the room for error? No, both are not 100% identical, but the measurements tell the story. If they measure equal, where is the room for error? If the error was that great, they why would you match those two speakers together anyway? It just doesn't make logical sense.
No disrespect, but I guess I'll never get what your saying. It's so insignificant that it's really not worth the time and energy. Maybe after some years of refinement I'll get a glimps of what your saying. But for now, my magic chipmunk is making more sense about audio than you are.
What your arguing is neither hear nor there, because your talking in a complete circle. Stick to your pre-1920 SET technology and out of phase single driver speakers..thats your right! For me, I'll continue to experience my music with current techonolgy...in MC. This system has something your is missing, good sounding music the way the artist intended.
There's plenty of room on the wagon, just don't bring you bottle this time! |
Cdw,
I don't have circa 1920 SET amps. And my speakers are phase-coherent. Obviously you don't know about my system. When you do, the conversation can improve.
The static measurements of drivers do not capture their actual behavior in dynamic use, and the ear can hear the difference. Or more to the point, the developed aural mind can discern the problem from the signal feed one's ears are sending to it.
Massing many "matched" drivers has its appeal but it nevertheless draws attention to what is different among them, however small. I have no idea what your "magic chipmunk" represents but audio sense isn't among its assets. If you can't hear the fundamental problem with massed matched drivers, MC artifice, and the limits of software trying to keep up, then you're perhaps happy with your MC sound. That's good for you. It's not even close to the tonal fidelity I can get from 2C and until you hear what I'm describing, there's no resolution to this impasse.
But again, it was YOU who asked the question originally. You just don't like my answer.
Phil |
And again Phil...Its not the answer, its the content behing it.
"The static measurements of drivers do not capture their actual behavior in dynamic use, and the ear can hear the difference."
"Massing many "matched" drivers has its appeal but it nevertheless draws attention to what is different among them, however small."
These statement pretty much means that every speaker, be it Wilson to Def Tech or DIY, draw attention to its imperfections because it uses multiple drivers. And of course you system doesn't because it uses a single "full" range driver. In other words, yours is better? I beg to differ, and so does every other manufactor and DIYer around!!
Also, no matter how much you measure a speaker, even during "dynamic use", if the output response measures even within +-1db, it still has no fidelity and imperfections are audible once you add more than one driver? |
"I don't have circa 1920 SET amps."
The technology hasn't advanced since the 20's, 50's the absolute latest. It's just in a modern housing. So, let me rephrase, its outdated!
"Obviously you don't know about my system. When you do, the conversation can improve."
Oh, but Phil, I have heard what your type of system sounds like. No I haven't heard your exact system obviously, thank God. I will say the conversation has progressed far more than the techology for your system has.
"I have no idea what your "magic chipmunk" represents but audio sense isn't among its assets. "
But even without audio sense, my magic chipmunk knows you don't know what your talking about and your talking in a complete circle.
"until you hear what I'm describing" - I can't because it ain't there!!
It's hopeless!! One minute your bashing MC, the next you even say 2ch "has its problems" with being holistic and having fidelity. Oh, I get it!! Unless someone has your exact system, they'll never have tonal fidelity or be holistic. It's just like my magic chipmunk...all in your head!!!
Have you ever had your holistic system with true tonal fidelity measured? I'm sure you wanna be able to back up all these outlandish aligations, don't you? Of course you didn't measure your system. Measurements mean nothing anyway, right? People just waste money and time to measure speakers for nothing?
Let's get back to the question at hand. 6k on a MC system, 10k on a 2ch, which one? And please keep the meaningless babble to a minimum!
Phil, you've clearly stated where you stood! Respect it....and laugh, all at the same time, I must! Agree..no comprehend...not a chance! Lets open things back up the less holistic system owners. |
Yes, Cdw, every speaker that uses massed drivers has the same problem I outlined. It only gets worse with many speakers, and is containable with just two.
Yes, my speaker is better for a lot of reasons, but its not exlusive. You can have then too. You can even use Zu speakers for a MC system. A pair of Definitions in front supplemented by Druids all around would be about as good as MC gets, within its unfortunate limits. And by the way, it really is not at all significant to me if "....so does every other manufacturer and DIYer around!" I cannot be responsible for what others haven't discovered yet, especially if they refuse to take advice, right?
You have developed a habit of mis-stating my position. I haven't said nor thought that combining drivers renders them having "no fidelity." That would be an absured idea. There are essentially only degrees of unreality available to us in hifi. We're all just trying to keep the unreality to a minimum. I have a way.
And yes, sometime you will hear what I'm talking about -- that good drivers massed draw attention to what is not matched.
Phil |
CDw,
Nothing on the market sounds like a Zu speaker. Honestly. Whether you like them or not, Zu speakers are their own thing. So I am quite certain you have not heard "my type of system." Don't presume that if you heard a Lowther or Fostex FRD loudspeaker driven by triodes that you've heard my system. Not likely close.
The only "old" technology in my amplification is the tubes themselves, particularly the 300B triode. Hmm....it's still regarded, within its power limits, one of the most linear amplifying devices made to date. Now, apart from that little bit of excellence, it sounds good too, especially if it is used in an advanced circuit to eliminate the bass bloat common in too many 300B amps, and the design pulls the treble spray into line. How's that done? With inventive combinations of resistors, capacitors, chokes, inductors, and transformers that are in virtually every other modern amp. "It's just a modern housing"....? Ridiculous. And, Man, if you haven't seen it, wait until you see an 845! Magnificent!! How about 7 of those to light up a room, if you're so set on MC?
I believe you cannot hear what I have been describing as the superior sound of well-designed 2C. I also do not attribute this to a physical deficiency in your ears but an attitudinal one between them. But that will sometime change and you'll begin paying attention to what your ears already know, that your brain has yet to assimilate. Patience.
I don't think I said 2C "has its problems with being holistic." In fact I pointed out holistic sound as a superior 2C attribute. There are people who feel that monaural sound is better still, but I've already said I'm not among them. 2C is CAPABLE of delivering the highest fidelity music reproduction available today at a given cost, but there's no guarantee you'll attain it. There are lots of ways to screw it up! Certainly, someone who knows what they are doing with MC could design a system that sounds better than someone who DOESN'T know what they are doing with 2C. But that's not what we've been talking about. Design two systems, one MC and one 2C informed by the same respective expertise and funded by the same money -- heck let's give the MC guy 50% more! -- and 2C wins on fidelity, tone, less "unreality."
Now, I know you don't believe this. I am confident someday you will.
Phil |
CdWallace. Why so cynical? |
Very well elucidated thread...I would have to vote for MC although mine's a bit above the budget number quoted earlier...it can way out do my previous Krell 2 channel set up...Sounds better on music...surround recorded music and of course anything to do with video....But it does take some fussing...about a year in my case to get the HTS where I really am happy with it |
Jefff1,
What's your system bro? That was the whole point of this thread to find people who have managed to get their multichannel system to outperform their two channel system. |
I see there is contention over the idea of multiple drivers. I don;t want to get too involved in this thead as i'm more interested in the one about full range/not so full range comparisons/benifits/compromises.
But my 2 cents is that I;'ve yet to hear and like a muti-driver speaker. From the mid 70's through the new modern reto-muti driver speaker of today, the Legacy Whispers come to mind. one word YUCK. |
Phil... thanks for your opinion. You've thoroughly explained you methodology behind your set. No need to explain any further! Supprisingly, my magic chipmunk understand completely where your coming from and has designed a system based on your opinions. Unfortunately, just like what you claim to be hearing from your "holistic" system, my magic chipmunk just doesn't exist!
Maybe in another 50 years, techonology would have reverted back to outdated techonolgy and I'll get it then. |
D_Edwards...in response to your question about how I got my system to sound better....Up front I use 3 Merlin TSM-MMs...one shielded for the center channel..Merlin stands are custom built and sand filled with 4 point stand supports...The rear channel speakers are Source Technology which are designed for surround use and beat out a number of other speakers for rear channel use..They are also mounted at the right height in my room on the rear wall which took a bunch of experimentation....Speaker cables and interconnects are Anti Cables from Paul Speltz and have whopped up on a bunch of other cable/IC combos..Monster AVS2000 works well here where we have large voltage swings.....Amplification is Butler 5 channel tube amplifier....Sub is the new Velodyne DD 15...setting atop an ASC sub trap 18" by 18"..DVD player is a Verastarr Stage 2 modified Denon 3910..Power cords for all components are also custom but not overly expensive....My listening room has undergone extensive acoustic treatment from the corners...to the walls...floor and window treatments...It has become a much more involving and fun system than any combo of components I've had in the past 33 years..I couldn't have come up with this quality of system without the help of longtime Agon member David99...His recommendations ...suggestions..and patience to help me work through this new maze has been tremendous..and I really owe the results to him...I just forked over the dough.....My wife and I are very pleased to say the least.... |
CDw,
The holistic presentation of music from 2C, that I cited, exists for anyone careful enough to build a system and set it up to attain it. Your perception of this benefit appears to be absent, perhaps constrained by the limits of 2C systems you've built in the past. When you tire of chasing your tail with MC, as you no doubt will, you will return to technology appropriate to the task. That is, if you're listening to music rather than focused on movies. In the meantime, enjoy the route you've taken. It will be fun for you. We always say the journey, not the destination, is the point of travel, right?
Phil |
Phil...the holistic benifit has always been in my previous 2ch and current MC system. It's even in the numerous high and ultra high end systems I've heard at local and regional audioshops. I'm saying the holistic benifit is on a much grander scale than with 2ch. Not with movies but with music. You're more than correct, I'm having a ball with MC. The journey didn't take long either. I've been involed with mid and hifi for about 3 years now. MC is my reference, not 2 ch. |
"I'm saying the holistic benifit is on a much grander scale than with 2ch."
Correction - on a grander scale...with MC, than 2ch. |
"When you tire of chasing your tail with MC, as you no doubt will, you will return to technology appropriate to the task."
Phil you assume so much, how do you know you're not chasing your tail right now? It took you 53 years to find the right speakers? Why haven't you checked out speakers like Tannoy and Cabasse, all of which adhere to your ideals? Tannoy has made a speaker like yours for decades! Why not a Manger Zerobox 109 which can be setup to play from 200hz to 40khz with no crossover? I would think you might have explored some of these options. But you were going to buy a Sonus Faber?
"No, Cdw, you're missing my point. Taking one accurate driver and adding another is revealing the error between them. Then do it again, and again, and again, and you begin to have slightly distinct voices. Clarity and tone are the casualties. There are no two exactly matched drivers. This is just one of the many problems with line-source loudspeakers, even in 2C."
So you prove this point to us all by purchasing speakers that has no less than 7 drivers on them each? Ok, so this aspect may not be SO important after all. And competent surround processors are quite capable of perfectly aligning the speakers, that's why there are some processors you shouldn't buy. I believe You waaaaay over state your abilities to hear differences between two drivers and overlook the transitions a single driver goes through making its own sound. A full range cone driver will likely have greater variation in tone than three seperate elements.
some Single cone problems;
1. Uneven frequency response= less Fidelity
2. The transition from 4pi to 2pi, makes the driver sound as different as two drivers and destroys tone
3. Modulation of high frequencies due to low frequency content. destroys tone and fidelity
These are just a few of the reasons most speaker designers put two to three drivers in their systems anyway. If one driver is going to sound different across its frequency band why not use two , each optimized for its bandwidth. They call it the lesser of two evils I think. This ability to hear the lack of holistic sound in multi-driver systems is all in your head as you have proven by your actions.
"Nothing on the market sounds like a Zu speaker. Honestly. Whether you like them or not, Zu speakers are their own thing."
Yes I agree. That Includes what's on the recording.
"There'd be software processing attempting to ham-handedly simulate much more complex wave behavior than the processor and speaker array would be up to."
I'm sure Jim Fosgate and Bob Stuart disagree and You have little or no idea how modern surround works and the current complexity of processing and accuracy of the algorithms. Two channel directly interferes with natural wave propagation, it is an unfortunate tone destroying side effect. That is why you still use triodes and if not those an autoformer McIntosh which dull the leading edge that is so harsh on a simple two channel system. Your whole system right down to your Denon cartridge addresses and diffuses and dulls the inherent high frequency issues in two channel. Unwittingly you have showed your hand, by doing everything you can to diffuse and soften the highs of your system. As the sources and electronics continue to improve, using only two speakers becomes the obvious liability. One day you will figure that out. In the end Phil you don't have to worry about me having the tone and fidelity in my system. You are too inconsistent to be the arbitor of tone and fidelity and if you took a second to refresh yourself you would see how incorrect these following statements sound to someone like me when we consider all that you have said and further more your actions;
"Effects, breakdown analysis, picayune critique of details. I find fewer and fewer people listening holistically or even able to comprehend what I mean by that."
(That's because you don't define it very well, because you say one thing and do another.)
"Yes, Cdw, every speaker that uses massed drivers has the same problem I outlined. It only gets worse with many speakers, and is containable with just two." "Yes, my speaker is better for a lot of reasons," "And yes, sometime you will hear what I'm talking about -- that good drivers massed draw attention to what is not matched." (and buy those speakers anyway :) "No, I haven't yet found you can add multiple drivers and achieve intended tone if the drivers are accurate. No two drivers are fully matched. Just close. Having more just makes the inconsistencies more audible and disruptive to fidelity." (so I should buy a speaker with 7 drivers each?) Magic Chipmunk No. 7!
"But that will sometime change and you'll begin paying attention to what your ears already know, that your brain has yet to assimilate. Patience." (The brain knows we hear in a primarily 360 degrees field, what more is there to know?)
"How's that done? With inventive combinations of resistors, capacitors, chokes, inductors"
(The rest of us call that an equalizer, I can't believe you have an equalizer built into your 1920 amplifiers, that's so cool! is it 5 band or 3 band?) .....doesn't that hurt "tone"?
"I don't have circa 1920 SET amps. And my speakers are phase-coherent. (proof please) I bet we can find that circuit in an old navy manual. "Monaural can have terrific tone", ( but a center channel in a system can't)
"heck let's give the MC guy 50% more! -- and 2C wins on fidelity, tone, less "unreality."" (sounds like wager time!)
"Well-made stereo works with human spatial perception in a way mono nearly completely lacks." (and 2ch mostly lacks)
Well Phil we are at an impasse, but you need to get your story straight. Because you tell me one thing and then we have to make an exception for your equipment and your choices. You don't follow what you say is true. So you discredit yourself, which is why I am confused at times. |
CDw,
Tannoy, check. Years ago. Cabasse check. Menger, check. Bastani, check. Some of these do very well in certain respects and all are toneful speakers. Not much I haven't investigated and heard. I have a lot of "ins." I ended up completely outside my extensive audio industry network and found Zu. There's a reason. None of the above match Zu for essential fidelity. The strength of Sonus Faber is that the line represents "voiced" loudspeakers. Crossovers are mild and less intrusive than most. In the absence of good integrated performance from other systems, Sonus Faber's subtle voicing invariably sounds like real music in a domestic setting, and the speaker design anticipates the acoustics of domestic environments. The Cremona and above are among the best speakers using crossovers in terms of being able to represent music holistically. Zu is better still, for reasons already outlined.
It didn't take me 50 years to find the right speaker. I've always found the most natural and holistic-sounding speaker for music available at any given time and within what I was willing to spend and accommodate. Zu's solution is an unusually large advance, which is why it is notable and commonly not understood by people who haven't heard Zu speakers. If you think you've heard Zu because you've heard other FRDs, you're mistaken.
I have Zu Druids along with Definitions in two separate systems. There is no question that Druids, using only one FRD, present a note more holistically than do the Definitions which use two FRDs. But Definitions have greater resolution, more linear accuracy, can scale more extensively, and throw a wider usable soundstage. Nothing is perfect so there is a trade-off to each advantage. Fortunately for me, I have both, so I can listen to each according to whim. More to the point, what my double-FRD Definitions DON'T have is the even worse problem of massed crossovers. So I accept one pair of FRDs per side as this is still more direct than most systems, and when I want the special intimacy of no driver duplication, I have my Druids system. If you research my posts here, you will find that I have consistently raised this difference as distinguishing these speakers from one another.
The sub-bass array in the Definition does use 4 drivers each. As a practical consideration, a simgle 18" driver might be better, but the packaging is not domestically friendly. Given the relative lack of defining transient information below 40Hz where the sub-bass array is active, I can accept the massed drivers compromise there. Still there are only two channels, which is the correct number, given current acoustic understanding, technology and software processing. And associated signal shaping is at an absolute minimum.
Two channels can generate interferences, true. It's way true for MC too. Neither is perfect. But this defect is less tone-destroying than multichannel processing by a long shot. It really doesn't matter to me whether Bob Stuart, Jim Fosgate or anyone else disagrees with me. I've owned Bob Stuart's speakers in the past. He usually has at least one really good speaker at a price and the rest are fatiguing and unlistenable. In fact I'll go so far as to say that Bob Stuart -- a highly competent sound professional -- nevertheless knew more about tone 20 years ago than he does today, if I were to judge by his products.I like the *idea* of Bob Stuart's speakers -- especially the more recent digital and process-oriented offerings -- more than the speakers themselves. I do understand MC processing and especially am intimately familiar with software and processors. Today, none of this is up to the task of contributing to fidelity, only in elevating selective perceptual effects.
This is an interesting notion you raise, claiming that my system is designed to soften highs, transients, detail, etc. However, in terms relative to other gear, it's an uninformed and mistaken assertion. I have multiple pairs of tube amps. One pair is very wideband, flat 5Hz - 115kHz, better than many solid state and certainly MC amps. They have very fast rise time, are not obscuring of detail in the least. But they are highly capable at delivering the whole note, not just the superficial suggestion of it. My other amps are flat about 5 Hz - 35kHz, and while they are triode amps, they do not have even a trace of the slow round sound people who have limited experience with tube amps assume defines the genre. My speakers are, as you know, quite wideband as well and extremely revealing of detail along with tone. And then there's the Denon phono cartridge. You think it has dull high frequency response and truncates detail. Hmm....I suppose you've never used one. Moreover, this tells me you think that all variants of the Denon DL103 sound the same. Again, you'd be mistaken to think so. I use the DL 103D, which isn't sold these days, but I had the foresight to buy an ample reserve. In short, your comments demonstrate you've not heard Zu speakers (I asked and you haven't answered) and now I also know you have zero familiarity with the rest of my systems. Also apparently McIntosh autoformer amps are outside your direct experience as well. I suppose you can only hear so much in three years.
Uneven FRD frequency response? True in lesser FRD systems. Not true for the Zu FRD. Again, when you audition it, then you can comment from an informed perspective.
4pi>2pi causing inconsistent driver behavior? See above.
Modulation of high freqencies due to low frequncy content? Well, we disagree on whether you can judge tone, but again, see above. This ain't just any old whizzer cone FRD.
Oh...all electronics use circuitry to amplify. Yes! My single ended amps use much less of it. No, it doesn't destroy tone relative to vastly more complicated circuits. They preserve tone. However, there's always room for improvement. I'm always open to something better.
Top to bottom, everything I've outlined is present in my system configuration. Highly-refined wideband and simple circuits, wide-response, fast, articulate sources, and speakers built around a uniquely wide-range, neutral FRD that uses a minimum number of drivers to achieve their bandwidth, response, resolution and natural tone.
I recall what I "knew" when I was 3 years into hifi. Time will change your perspective. You can be sure of it.
Phil |
Phil wrote: "Two channels can generate interferences, true. It's way true for MC too. Neither is perfect. But this defect is less tone-destroying than multichannel processing by a long shot."
This argument is a canard. There is no additional processing in true multichannel; tsimply, there are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo.
Kal |
Kal...glad everyone doesn't buy into Phil's eroneous theories. |
"There are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo." Well, there is that little defect too. How many multi-channel schemes are there? There's a reason every one of them requires a processor somewhere in the chain. Stereo puts it all in the medium and in your head.
Phil |
""There are more channels handled in the same way as the two in stereo." Well, there is that little defect too. How many multi-channel schemes are there? There's a reason every one of them requires a processor somewhere in the chain. Stereo puts it all in the medium and in your head."
There's no need for a processor in a multichannel system except, perhaps, in your head. ;-)
Kal |
I also dabbled in "quadraphonic" systems for a while. I came to feel that as a concept and potential, MC should be better if money was no object anywhere in the chain: sound recording, equipment design and manufacture, my own budget. With realistic systems possible within my budget however I could always assemble a more satisfying 2C system. Perhaps, a role was also played by the sources available (LP's then, CD's now) that were/are optimized for 2C. 213Cobra: I've always found the most natural and holistic-sounding speaker for music available at any given time and within what I was willing to spend and accommodate. I wonder if you'd mind going down the memory lane and listing what those were at different times. The best you heard and the best you could afford. |
Phil, You just have all the answers, :) I love it. "The strength of Sonus Faber is that the line represents "voiced" loudspeakers." Yeah you could call it "voiced" if you like, but I have to disagree with the desirability of the net effect of "voiced"....voiced hurts Fidelity. The Cremona's violate atleast three of your speaker "ideals" which others I listed do not. "None of the above match Zu for essential fidelity." What is Fidelity to you, certainly not the accepted definition. The Manger I KNOW beats the Zu in Fidelity, it may be the most advanced driver in the world. Zu may still sound better but that is not Fidelity necessarily. "The Cremona and above are among the best speakers using crossovers in terms of being able to represent music holistically. Zu is better still, for reasons already outlined."
I can think of a half dozen speakers that out shine the Cremona's in the "holistic" department. Certainly all of your experience has left you confused with too many options. Fact is anyone would have purchased the Manger until you heard the Zu, but you didn't you were going to buy a Sonus faber and of course this is the inconsistency I speak of. Flip Flop, and then you found the Zu. Your audio life was saved by two full range drivers in chorus. COMPLETELY against your ideals. Shows how much you learned in all your years, you're still trial and error.
"Uneven FRD frequency response? True in lesser FRD systems. Not true for the Zu FRD. Again, when you audition it, then you can comment from an informed perspective." I've seen the measurements in two magazines at best its +/- 4 dB from 200hz to 10khz, that is hardly what I would call ideal. You can't "hear" the actual frequency response Phil. Typical audiophile thinks he can hear stuff he can't Everybody I know has an issue with the bass, I could careless, what bothers me is the incredibly ragged off axis response and dips in critical frequency ranges. The fact the driver actually appears to have an impedance hump where it shouldn't will adversely effect phase and the "tone". This is the Druid, with just one driver.
"They have very fast rise time, are not obscuring of detail in the least."
Really, well what is it and what are THEY.....hide and seek with you all the time. As for their bandwidth, that is meaningless in my point about how you've tried to dull the highs in your system. I like how everything in your system is so perfect but what I like better is you don't know that you're dulling your highs. McIntosh amplifiers are adjusted and a bit rounded, just look at their square wave sometime. Tsk, Tsk, you should know better that too argue what you "think" you hear with someone who want facts. Its really intellectually dishonest of you to TELL me what you hear is the truth. I simply cannot share these kinds of FACTS? with you. So you're going have to do better than pronouns and supposition if we're going to elevate this conversation to a productive level. "Zu's solution is an unusually large advance", This is strictly in your (ever decreasingly credible) opinion! Because I don't see it. because the only FACTS on this speaker that I have seen, barely makes them goode. I see a hot rodded eminence driver with some clever tuning to help with baffle step compensation and other than that it appears to behave like almost every other 10" midrange one can buy. Yeah I still have to hear it but if we deal with facts not opinion, I'm going to need a great deal more information from you to support your claims. Right now those two magazines are the arbitor of my opinion because they both show similar results on your "advanced" driver. BTW this is not a disparagement of ZU, this is a disparagement of what you say the facts are and what the facts really are and your consistent misuse of the word Fidelity
"Definitions DON'T have is the even worse problem of massed crossovers."
Oh yeah, but I wonder if you know what happens when two speakers cover the same frequency spaced as they are? Do you know? They kind of crossover.
"But Definitions have greater resolution, more linear accuracy, can scale more extensively, and throw a wider usable soundstage." I love when people make my point for me; How do you think the Definitions have greater resolution and "throw" a wider soundstage? Personally I think you're just making this up from a technical standpoint, well actually I don't. I'm sure you "hear" it this way but you would would be very upset to find that the reason you like the fuzzier presentation is because the two drivers combine to actually diffuse the high frequencies. You really should do more real research because unwittingly you just made my argument that 2 speakers (ie the Zu Druid) is not as good as 4 speakers (Zu Definition). So you do prefer multichannel better. All you have to do now is spread all those speaker out a little. :) And I'm not being cute, check it out before you come back with something smug based on your complete misunderstanding of what's happening.
Man Phil, you don't know yourself very well. "Top to bottom, everything I've outlined is present in my system configuration. Highly-refined wideband and simple circuits, wide-response, fast, articulate sources, and speakers built around a uniquely wide-range, neutral FRD that uses a minimum number of drivers to achieve their bandwidth, response, resolution and natural tone." Phil, you're like Bill Clinton, minimum? response? fast? I think you're trying to redefine these terms. The whole Denon Cartridge thing, still sticks, and once again you simply do not know what really matters in creating the "tone" of a system. "I've owned Bob Stuart's speakers in the past. He usually has at least one really good speaker at a price" This conversation is not about his speakers Equating his speakers with the entirety of his work is typical of your knowledge base, but I'm surprised you had to go there at all.
"I have multiple pairs of tube amps. One pair is very wideband, flat 5Hz - 115kHz, better than many solid state and certainly MC amps. They have very fast rise time, are not obscuring of detail in the least."
So whats the spectral content of those amplifiers? you don't even know, which is why you make a completey irrelevant statement about MC amplifiers. I could have SET MC amplifiers could I not? Do I have to use MC amps in a MC system? No I do not. BTW which tube amp is 5hz-115khz? into a resistive load, remember static amplifier performance does not equal dynamic amplifier performance! "I recall what I "knew" when I was 3 years into hifi. Time will change your perspective. You can be sure of it."
Yes it will, but because I listen to people with greater experience than myself, that actually SHOW me REAL information and let me derive my own opinion. I am already better off than you. I am not in a world of disolusion. Because to simply base all my knowledge on marketing text and hearing sessions would keep me spinning. And like you I will never know what I'm looking for.
In Closing
One thing I do know about your system is you prefer the multi-channel version of your speakers over the two channel one....let that be a lesson to you.
There's your sign. ;) |
CDw,
So...you don't like Sonus Faber huh? Perhaps you never heard them with the right amp. You can buy the speaker at Magnolia, but you can't buy an amp there that drives them properly. No matter. I didn't buy them either. Whether you think a Manger is a fully-realized speaker is up to you. It wasn't good enough for me.
One thing to set you straight -- it wasn't the 2-FRD Zu Definition that diverted me from Sonus Faber, it was the single-FRD Druid. That was my initial Zu purchase. And if I only had room for one system, It's the Druid that would stay. I have the luxury of having 2, however.
You haven't heard Zu speakers. I can't comment on whatever graphs you've seen on Definitions without knowing them, but +/-4db isn't what you'll actually experience, unless you include the much wider amplitude variations imposed by your room, in which case no speaker measurements are worth knowing. How far off axis are you listening anyway? In my rooms, I have as much *not* ragged response dispersion as the room can use.
The Druid graph you've seen is most likely the Soundstage graph, as there is no other in general circulation that I recall. That test erroneously measured the speaker while placed in mid-air. The Griewe model essential to the speaker's bass extension and midrange linearity could not work in that configuration. It's a fundamentally incorrect test that affects the FRD well up into the midrange. Do you have an anechoic chamber at home? Please put the Druid on the floor when you test it.
It is well known among people who use Zu speakers that Zu manages the mid-range and high frequency output of the FRD acoustically by having two of them. I don't like it better than the single driver Druid. It gains something, already mentioned, and loses something too. I like it for its strengths. Yes, of course the dual FRD is elemental to its advantages and also responsible for the Definition's weakness relative to the Druid. Within current technology, it's a reasonable compromise. It's only 2 per side, not 3, 5, 7 or more, which would be worse. And no multiplication of crossovers, which would be worse still.
Until you can tell me you've heard a Zu speaker, there's nothing more to say about your critique that its FRD must behave like every other 10" driver. It doesn't and you don't know what you're talking about until you hear them. For a thorough accounting of the sonic experience of Druids and Definitions, look up the reviews on 6moons.com and Tone, among others. And watch for Sean Casey's details about his drivers. Or call him up and ask him. Read their FAQ. Get it straight from the design engineers. It's not so hard.
So you really don't know the Denon DL103D -- D, as in elliptical stylus version. I know newbies have discovered the 103 -- and more power to them, it remains a great cartridge. But the D is considerably more defined and extended, and absent what you hint must be its limits. So once again, when you have actual experience with the item in question, come back to talk about it.
I think I gave Bob Stuart credit for his professional acumen. The guy is brilliant. His speakers aren't the sum total of his work, but they do indicate the direction of his notions of tonal fidelity. If his speakers embody his principles, then in terms of tonal fidelity he is lately either regressive or emphasizing the wrong things. Sometimes brilliant people just go down a counterproductive path.
You can find a number of wideband tube amps that are ultrasonic into a resistive load, dynamically. Audiopax 88s are among them. My triode amps are Audion Golden Dream and Black Shadow, which only a brief search here would have revealed to you. Also ultrasonic, into a resistive load, dynamically. Heck, you could dig up some Julius Futterman OTLs or Atmaspheres. Go further to early Harman-Kardons. We're not all listening to McIntosh MC30s, Marantz 8Bs and Dyna Stereo 70s in the world of tubes anymore. And by the way, there was a time when McIntosh autoformer amps did have a round, undynamic, dark sound and square wave performance (to the extent that it matters) was mediocre. That time is not now. Go test an MC1201.
Correct, you can build a multi-channel system using many copies of the same amps I use. That likely would get you closer to some semblance of tonal fidelity than the vast majority of what people use to amplify MC systems, but it will be less real than stereo with appropriate speakers. We keep coming back to the original question. For $XXXX, which gets you higher fidelity, MC or 2C? Conclusively 2C, if you know what you're doing and spend the money appropriately. On the secondary questions of whether spending MORE money allows MC to outperform ANY configuration of 2C, I say no, you say yes.
You're reaching to say that because I appreciate what the dual FRD Definition gains over the single FRD Druid, that this equates to a preference for more channels. No such thing is happening. The system remains 2 channel, and my appreciation of what the bigger speaker gains is in the context of having the smaller, simpler speaker too.
I've heard the states-of-the-arts in MC, multiple times, with professionals involved. Unfortunately you've heard none of my gear or anything similar to it, so we're not really commenting on the same plane of experience and education. If listening would leave your head spinning, then there's your proof that your frame of reference is insufficient. This will change with time. It's very easy to get anchored in definitive criteria for determining fidelity if you're willing. You can't really infer from someone's measurement what's going to be exceptional, only what's going to be adequate.
I love your commitment, am amused by your dogma, and know that these things too shall pass. Measurement is not reliable as a full-scope indicator of what you'll experience in the complex acoustic domain. And SYSTEMS must be evaluated, not just components. I have enough experience with and knowledge of the long sweep of audio history with respect to putting reproduced music in the home to know in that context that in 15 years, maybe 10, you will not be a MC user and you will recall this minor exchange as anticipating your return to 2C for all the reasons I've listed.
Phil |
"Cdwallace. why so cynical?"
Ecclectique I think you have your answer now :).
Jeff, smart system layout, no surround processor yet?, David99 is a smart guy, good guy to have helped you. |
Cdw,
Hmm...unprocessed multichannel. Then it dawned on me. Are you a proponent of the Kimber 4.0 technique using Isomike recording? Is that your dogma, your specific MC bliss?
Phil |
Sure Phil...whatever your say! |
UUUUUHHHmmm.............NO! Try again! Keep "dawning" and when all else fails...refer to you mystical chipmunk #7! |
This has been interesting,
A SET guy who doesn't understand the limitations of his amplifiers, and accuses someone else of "dogma"...LOL!!!Black kettle calling someone something...right?
So I'm curious, Phil, can you get me any info like I see in Stereophile on your amplifiers? Talk, talk doesn't help. What do you think the chances are that they actually put out their rated power? 50%?
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/740/index11.html
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/351/index6.html
So which one looks like yours? If you like distortion you got the right amplifiers! Bandwidth is still limited on your amplifiers but not as important as some other items we see in the Stereophile battery of measurements.
"So...you don't like Sonus Faber huh? Perhaps you never heard them with the right amp."
Do they make an amp to fix all that is broken? Admittedly the Cremona is a more complete design than the pathetic Amati. But when I can get better audio performance from $3000 speakers what is the point? It be nice to hear someone speak on a Sonus speaker that doesn't sound like
they have a swollen tongue.
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/304sonus/index3.html
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/506sf/index3.html
"Whether you think a Manger is a fully-realized speaker is up to you. It wasn't good enough for me."
I'm quite certain you didn't hear it with the correct amplifier.
"Go test an MC1201."
They did for us!!....and you're hearing seems to be failing you. I don't blame you though 'cause when you own a real good surround system with peerless fidelity and tone like myself and others, you simply can hear these details so much clearer. I think its the center channel that makes it so revealing. I know that looks like a solid square wave to a tube guy but it's not for the rest of us.
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/428/index7.html
"My triode amps are Audion Golden Dream and Black Shadow, which only a brief search here would have revealed to you. Also ultrasonic, into a resistive load, dynamically"
Phil, this bandwidth you're hung on has nothing to do with my comments about the characteristic highs in your system. 34khz is hardly sky high bandwidth, you certainly may want to clean the leaves out of the intakes after every flight.
"Conclusively 2C, if you know what you're doing and spend the money appropriately. "
Not with the equipment you've been suggesting....there's nothing conclusive about it except a resounding defeat for legacy two channel system. I've done it many times.
So you really don't know the Denon DL103D -- D, as in elliptical stylus version, It's a full rich cartridge. I did not imply that it was defective or bad (or that any of your equipment is bad) but its slightly rich tendency is
simply adding to all the other fixed Eq you have applied to your system to take the edge off the highs. I couldn't have said it any better.
"Measurement is not reliable as a full-scope indicator of what you'll experience in the complex acoustic domain."
Kid yourself all you want, someone who measures makes strides to dissecting what's happening in the complex acoustic domain. Certainly better than sitting back and guessing wrong all the time. Don't you think?
"I have enough experience with and knowledge of the long sweep of audio history with respect to putting reproduced music in the home to know in that context that in 15 years, maybe 10, you will not be a MC user and you will
recall this minor exchange as anticipating your return to 2C for all the reasons I've listed."
Don't hold your breathe, he's already way ahead of you in knowledge and education. What's experience when you're just feeling around in the dark? I bought a map, I've got direction. Certainly a luxury you didn't have 3
years into the hobby.
"but they do indicate the direction of his notions of tonal fidelity."
You don't know squat about Bob Stuart's notions. Just fabricating stuff. Let me tell you companies like Sonus Faber and their advanced design and sound quality have more to do with the way his speakers sound than his
notions of Fidelity.
"It's very easy to get anchored in definitive criteria for determining fidelity if you're willing."
Well Phil you seem pretty definite on your version of fidelity, too bad it doesn't jive with actual definition. Even had that convincing no crossover rap flowing like a river. Alas, as I pointed out before, you betray yourself at every turn. You can have seven drivers or 2 drivers per speaker but a MC system is subverted by two drivers and those destructive crossovers. The litany of excuses does little to persuade. Your spinning the story and finding a new path to slip down does not go unnoticed. Your dismissal of facts/ measurements, not inspirational to ones confidence that you fully understand what you're saying. |
Does any one else have any pleasent multichannel experiences? |
