Boy, you go to soooo much trouble to shoot down my perspective. Is it such a threat? Perhaps if you follow some of principals I suggest you will gain a little more confidence. |
Make me.
But if I did, you have dug yourselves a deep enough hole at this point that it would just embarrass you.
|
Just the way your mind works, I guess. |
|
Its about power. The speaker mfgr gives a range recommendation. There is a concensus that if you go a little above the minimum recomendation it can offer a sense of 'ease' at higher levels of playback, but do not get too close, or for sure exceed, the maximum.
Otherwise, expecially with the very accurate maggies, the most distortion free amp you can find/afford. The vintage Hafler DH-200/220 can consistently be found for $200. The Muse 160 for $6-800. Also if you can find a BEL 1001 (?)
Probably the best value (distortion free/build quality) is the ATI line, but Jeff Rowlands also makes a comparable amp, but it is so beautiful you can hang it on the wall ($8k though).
Dipole: ELS, planer/ribbon, or especially open baffler speakers, with a distortion free amp is going to make the selection of recordings an issue since you will then hear how poorly so many are made (grrrr).
For a list of tested and proven sonically superior CD's, in a variety of genres, see the MUSIC link at www.linkwitzlab.com It is encouraging to hear how it can be, and free you from the intimidation of poorly produced source material that can make you feel there is somethig wrong with your system/setup. |
I do not think it is wise to go by what you hear on a forum. Notice the varied and conflicting opinions. Very little, if any, concensus on anything.
A majority of 'audiophiles' are out of their tree, I don't care how much they spend. A total lack of science is the first clue. We are talking about electronics here. There has to be some, if not mostly, science, which is provable, right.
Otherwise its just sorcery. And how subjective is that.
Find a low distortion 100-150w amp (Hafler Dh-200/220, Musie 160, or any ATI or the pricy Byrston. Maggies, or Martin-Logan ELS, or even better active EQ/CO open baffle design will perform with significant realism.
The top end gear, cables and tweaks, are insignificant by comparison to the speakers/amp/setup --and source material. That is how you get to 'the last speakers you will ever buy'. |
Are you implying that there is NO difference in I/C's, speaker cables, and power cords?
No. I am saying that any 'sound' a component has is distortion. Even it is a distortion that 'sounds good', or is pleasing, to the listener.
The 'sound' of a cable does not get you to an accurate 'true to the original' playback of the music.
I traded in several thousand dollars worth of cable for RadioShack products fully expecting an audio train wreck. But all that happened was the system sounded a little more real. I had to laugh at myself for being so gullible.
My system:
Audio Aristry 'Dvorak' 2-way active EQ/XO open baffle speakers. Two pairs 12" woofers in push-pull (also open baffle) configuration.
60w ATI amplifier to each driver.
Top end gear is not significant, nor are cables, or tweaks. But I have spent great effort in the best setup to get the most out of the system in my room.
Of course with dipole (ELS, Planner/ribbon, and open baffle) designs, acoustic room treatment devices are hardly needed since their approx 30 degree radiation pattern does not excite those pesky room modes like the 360 radiation pattern of the enclosed cablinet designs.
Plus, with open baffle, you do need a vice for your head to not lose the sweet spot as it is quite wide and deep. Setup is not nearly so finicky either.
Define 'sounding'. Any 'sound' a componnet makes is distortion. The degree of distortion of an amp is measurable. Those with low enough distoriton tend to publish the specs that reveal that quality.
Those with higher degrees of distortion tend not to, and like to play to, 'its how it sounds to you', for their more gullible potential buyers.
Anyone aspiring to 'true to the original' in their playback system that has ever hooked up dipole speakers to a low distortion amp will attest to the high degree of realism they experience in music. |
OK
Audiophiles, like anything else I suppose, can be divided into two camps. The one, those who for some reason have been persuaded into using their playback system to mix and modify the music they play. Ever searching for that 'sound' that is supposed to be better than some other sound that is the specific quality of their system.
Of course they never really get there, because after a while they become like Robert Frost's 'Searcher': who is always searching and can never find because it would end his search. The industy loves this type.
The other, are those few who aspire to 'true to the original' in an electronic playback system to hear muisc as live, and life like as possilbe in the pricacy and comfor of their own home.
This type is duly angered at the arrogance and conceit of engineers who presume to 'improve' the music the artists create with their room size 1/4 million dollar mixing console toys, or are just incompetant at placing a mic so the bass gets realistically recorded, etc.
And are grateful for those few engineeers and producers who put the music first and also aspire to 'true to the original' in what they record for us.
BTW there is a list of tested and proven sonically superior reference quality CD's at the MUSIC link at www.linkwitzlab.com in a variety of genres.
There is also a review of reference earphones (Shure ER $100) for anyone who wants to hear the source material as it was recored, then compare to how it is affected by their system, setup, and the room. Very useful in evaluationg components, and conditions in the goal of achieving realism.
Better? |
I have learned that in discussion forums when comments become personal the discussion usually comes to a bad end.
It coming to an end then is good though because if the issues raised, and the opionons expressed are not addressed it just becomes a bore anyway.
Even now, attempting to take the high ground here, notice, this is not going anywhere. Oh, well. Way to go.
|
Accepted. Were you having a bad day :-) |
When it gets personal... it always comes to a bad end. It is a downward spiral. Lets get back to judgementaless free expression, and learn to enjoy each other's differences.
Hint: consider your own attitue before judging what other's is. Especially in print, which is lacking the 80+% of communication that is non verbal.
I believe 'having a bad day' was taken for the humor intended (by the person it written to, hint, hint :-) |
Point of order. You get bass response from the speaker drivers, not the amplifier. What you want from an amp is power sufficient for the drivers, but not such much to risk damage, and the minimal distortion. If it is low enough, like say ATI <0.005% over a 5hz-50khz frequency range, and the lower frequencies got onto the source material, then its up to your speakers to reach down that far and accuratly resond. |
Do you know the degree of distortion of the amp? Is it <0.1% over a 5hz-50khz frequency range. There are amps with way less (ATI for instance is <0.005%), but anything more and I think you are pretty much out of the 'hi-fi' catagory.
What do you mean by 'good'? |
If you put more power into the speaker than they are made to stand damage will result. That is why the mfgr gives minimum power requirement, and Maximum to protect them.
I am curious why Magnapan so sidesteps the power issue unlike any other mfgr. Even if there is no concensus among the users how much power they 'like' for them to 'sound' a certain way. Perplexing though that notion is.
It is rational to provide a little more power than the minimum requirement for a sense of ease at higher playback levels, which is subtle. Any other 'sound' issue, other than the degree of distoriton inherent in the amp, is mysterious to me.
But then audiophilia is not without its sorcerers with aversion to any kind of science even in this electronic playback media. (he says 'in jest', warren :-) |
You are not going to get 'bass' out of a Maggie. It takes sub woofers (hybrid) to get to the lower frequencies. Even then, frequency integration is a challenge with those designs. The 1.6 only goes to what 40hz? No amount of power is going to change the frequency response of any speaker.
Imagining otherwise is just nonsense.
If you want the advantages of dipole in the upper bass, mid, and treble freqency, i.e., pristine accuracy, yet without the frequency integration problem associated with adding dynamic drivers for the lower bass, and the ELS/planer inherent setup difficulties, and their need for a vice to keep your head in a very narrow sweet spot, consider the open baffle designs: www.audioartistry.com, or www.linkwitzlab.com for a couple sources.
The AA 'Dvorak', for instance, only needs 100w for the main panels (2-10" mid, and tweeter), and 50w for the sub woofer pairs (2-12" also open baffle, in push-pull configuration).
All with an active crossover with equalizer capability for the woofers. Achieving seamless integration throughout, a wide and deep listening position, and ease of setup. With the active EQ/XO making them probalby the best speaker design extant for accuracy and 'true to the original' playback throughout their range capability.
Also room treatment devices are probably not called for, since the dipole drivers radiate off axis only about 30 degrees, as opposed to the 360 degrees of the enclosed cabinet designs. They tend not to excite those pesky low frequency room modes, which therefore do not need to be tamed with bulky, very expensive, and relatively ineffive devices.
The Dvorak in my 12+'x24' space are astonishingly accurate and 'live' like down to the lowest frequency the space is capable of: 24hz (565 divided by longest dimension, 24). |
Define 'best'.
Define 'good'.
I guess you do not get it. The music that was recorded on the source cannot be changed, or made good, or bad.
You can aspire to a system that will reveal the condition and sonic quality of the recorded material, or, lets see, what is the alternative.. oh, yea, or not...and rather distort it further, as the 'connoisseurs of coloration' declare is audiophilia.
Any 'sound', whether characterized as 'good', or 'best', or bad, that is of any component is distortion and will only degrade and/or corrupt the source signal. Regardless of its specific quality.
It is enlightening to listen to the source with reference earphones (like the SHUR ER2 --$100) and compare to what you hear in your room. Then attempt to discern what is the room, and what is the system. Then which of the system is the culpret.
I recommend beginning with the speakers, the primary component. Then their setup. Followed by the amp, and its level of distortion (most are excessive, at least compared to the few relativly distortion free amps). A guide is <0.1% THD (and IMD) over a 5hz-50khz frequency range. The few I have mentioned are more like <0.005%
Once there, what can be done about the room. Its back to the speakers. Maggies are revealing, as are most ELS, and planers. Realistic and integrated bass is the issue with them. A solution is open baffle designs.
I do not see what any of that has to do with anyone's subjective interpretaion or taste in 'sound'. You either hear the source with some accuracy, or you do not.
Then you are left with selecting source material of some degree of sonic excellence, and compentent engineering, that has not been over mixed. Or, is 'true to the original'. Or not.
How about the not so great. Does your system go silent if you put in say mediocre music?
You are right, the truth is not for everyone: audio, or otherwise. In fact there is not even a majority, or the world would not be as it is.
Plese tell us where you come down on the issue. Oh, wait, you (and warrenh) have.
OK.
We are getting to know each other. That is good.
|
The reference for 'truth' in audio is, 'true to the original'. That is, the more a system will reveal exactly, truely, the sonic character of the source material, the closer to the truth.
Producing the recording itself is on them to provide, as closely as possible, the 'sound' the musicans created in making their music, in the environment in which is was made. For instance a well produced, and engineered recording will reveal, not only realistic detail, such as vibrato, breath, fingers squeeking on strings, and other subtlties that are smeared by over-mixing, and distortion noticable, but the acoustics of the hall itself in playback ---system permitting, that is.
But of course, if systems to not reveal such realism that may be in the recording, the listener will literaly, 'not know what they are missing'. Ergo, a method to discover the 'truth' in audio playback, is to use reference earphones (SHURE E2 $100) to first hear the sonic quality of a recording, then compare to what degree the system, setup, and room are distroting that truth.
Then, of course, it is evident the significance the quality of the recording itself plays in this discovery of audio truth. So I refer you to a list of tried and proven sonically superior reference quality CD's at the MUSIC link at www.linkwitzlab.com
While offering at the same time a short cut to getting to that truth in one's system. The suggestion that those concerned about the accuracy of playback in their systems tend to end up with dipole speaker designs, and a low distortion amp to power them. Whether reference quality recordings are played, or not. At least then, the audiophile can 'hear' the 'truth' of the quality of the recordings played.
BTW, <0.005% THD being 'inaudible' is the whole point. The only good distortion is 'inaudible' distortion. Otherwise it mixes with the signal from the recorded material and it becomes very difficult to hear (discern) truth from the musical fiction that results. Or at least the sonic quality of the recording itself.
So, the truth will not be revealed until the system gets out of the way, since it, and the room, is the biggest liar in the process.
That is all I am saying. All you can say is, either you do not care to hear the truth, but rather are interested in achieving that personal preference for what sounds 'good' to you, or that you too seek the turth in audio. I believe that is the qualification, or disqualification, for being an 'audiophile'.
That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.
|
I believe the only reference for what is 'best' in recording and playback is the live music in the environment in which it is recorded, or 'true to the original'.
Too many in the recording industry are either ignorant of this principal, or do not find it worthing to pursue. As well as too many audiophiles who would otherwise have influence on the industry to make better recordings.
EVery aspect of recording, and the equipment used, can be referanced back to the live performance: studio, or auditorium. And should be. There are some few who do very well in producing 'live' like recordings. The trick is to find them, which can be all the more difficult with a playback system incapable of revealing the quality of the rercording, the good and the bad.
However if the system is designed to mask the all too numerous poor sonic qualities of recordings, it also masks out any possibility of hearing the 'live' like excellence of well produced, and engineered recordings.
BTW there is a list of tried and proven sonically superior, reference quality, CD's at the MUSIC link at www.linkwitzlab.com in a variety of musical genres. |
I too believe that with Maggies and a Bryson one will be drawn into the music to forgot about how they got there. As with most ELS, planer/ribbion, and open baffle speakers (that is, dipole designs) driven by a distortion free amp.
At least until an inferior recording is played. Then, because of the excellent revealing qualities of such a system, only the mid-fi and better recordings are tolerable. But then the excellent, well engineered recordings are ...well, what its all about. As close to being there as you can get with electronic playback in the privacy and comfort of your own home.
Aka, Nirvanah.
|
Does that line actually work on anyone? |
When, and why, did I become the subject of this thread? I mean, I am flattered, but What happened to audio. |
How about Hafler DH-200/220, Muse 160, ATI, Bryston, Jeff Rowland Design Group.... in ascending order of cost from $200 to $8k
All over an approx. frequency range of 5hz-50khz, and with an Output Impedance of <0.4ohms.
A minimum standard is <0.1% over that frequency range, with similar IMD as well.
So many 'Name Brands' do not even list these crucial specs. I have contacted many and found none to have specs near this range but who fail to mention it.
Where those who do, always list them. Hmmmm. I guess the mfgrs know the difference. The question is, do the users. |
As I read posts I take out what I want of what I am interested in, or of what I think may be of benfit or useful, and ignore what I do not understand, or particulary like. Of course with no animosity, hostility, or condemnation.
Like picking berries: I do not rage against the ones I reject, intentionally or otherwise.
If I did, I could not rationally expect anyone who observed such behavior to take seriously what I say. Nor consider any advise I might offer. About anything.
Such a person must either grossly overestimate their value, and/or likewise underestimate the value of the one they so treat.
So, in my opinion, anyone who would take it, must also need treatment. And I am sticking to it.
Or, put another way, as in Shakespear, 'me thinks thou dost protect too much'.
|
You grossly over estimate your value...at least to me. and, sorry, I just do not feel compelled to follow your direction/correction concerning audio, and certainly not personally.
How did this get personal anyway? I recall warning in the beginning that once it does that it can only degenerate in a downward spiral. That it always does, and guess what, even you agree to that now.
Before we go though, answer why you guys do not just scroll past my posts. Even the one liners. Why bother with them if you are so upset by them. Especially when to the extent that it causes you to behave so rudely hostile in your responses.
BTW this goes for your sidekick too.
|
The fight is called, 'King of the Mountain', typically played by boys: before they (hopefully) mature into more civilized, cultured men. Men who love and respect their wives and nurture their children: not gong outside the relationship to vent their frustrations in cyberspace.
I am going to look for some audio discussion now. You all carry on without me (as if I ever had to be here for this :-) |
So, the shoe fits. OK. I am aware of what I express as inferior, primitive, or just immature.
Much is revealed by what we identify with. In a way, life is an ink blot. What you see is 'who you are'. Or, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'. Ever heard that?
It can be very productive in deveoping as a human being. But of course it necessitates pointing the finger back at one's self, intead of always at others.
BTW, I do not expect any compliance with anything I suggest. contrare. It is a way of dealing with what one finds faulty, and to be generous, in need of improvement, without becoming a...well however you difine persons who resort to what has been directed at me peronally here by a couple of resident characters (feel free to include yourself :-) |
It is obvious now. YOu guys enjoy this. After me there will be someone else. Like before me, huh.
That is why you cannot leave it alone, and just move on. It what you do. Well, you have noticed its not what I do. I just could not let you wise in our own conceit. But I am satisfied now with your complete exposure, for the world to see, and feel my work is done here. |
Nothing personal, and no offence.
You can move on rather than persume to instruct others behavior, or where, and when they express themselves, which can only threaten the potential success of a mutually benificial and productive relationship. |
What is there about what I say that is so upseting to some that it compels them to such hostile reactions.
What is it so threatening that they cannot simply disagree and move on. Why keep clicking on my posts, repeatedly, only to become distraught, and so defensive as to feel the need to assert their authority, intelligence, or whatever credenitals the think they have, real or imagined, again, and again.
Oh, well. The world seems to get curiouser, and curiouser. |
You guys are really 'young', huh. (I did not say 'immature', though I suppose it is inferred).
Anyway, thanks for all the attention. I had not realized I was so important. Though I uderstand how my views can be threatening to misguided few, and that it is probably why they get responded to at such a lesser degree than the 'shoot the messenger' assaults on my person.
For all our expressions, though, all we really accomplish is revealing to the world who, and what, we are by what we say, and how we say it. There is really nothing we can do to change others to meet our perference, good or bad. Especially with mere verbalizations. That notion is a bit arrogant, isn't it. |
Thank you for a gentlemanly reaponse.
A refreshing change from the 'cat-fight-to-maintain-the-illusion-of-premenance' clique.
For them:
NEW RULE (in the spirit of Bill Mahar)
Confine discussion to audio issues, resisting the temptation to get personal when devoid of a credible arguement in support of held position (if any) on said issue. |
Huh? Are you so used to people complying with your demands. Or is it just wishful thinking. I do not HAVE to answer anything. Nor do you.
And frankly, I am amazed at getting so much attention. And so little having anything whatever to do with audio. Like this.
Oh, well. |
Mr Fatparrot,
Are you inferring that I have not made my position clear?
Antogonize somebody else for a while. |
Yea, that is it. Any comments about, oh, I don't know, audio?
|
Do you mean that if I was intimidated by this posse, fell into line, succumbed to, and enabled the 'teacher/student' relationship you all so fervently campaign for, that I would be accepted into your cyber classroom: if I will sit quietly in the back, obeniently answer all questions posed, and adhere to your dogma?
Let me think.... ahhh, no thanks. As inviting as that sounds, I will resist the temptation to free myself of your wrath in that way.
I hope you understand. Really. But I will not hold my breath. |
