Howard, that list brought back a memory that had long since been buried in the deepest recesses of my mind - Marilyn Lange, May of 1974. Though she probably isn't remembered by anyone else here, allow me to assure you she was one healthy young woman. Thank God Uncle Walter was careless with those magazines!
If I could get 1/100 of what Hef gets, I'd gladly go with a big time pipe and slippers rig (Quad ESL63, CJ PV10 preamp, Adcom 555 amplifier, Rega Planet CDP) evermore. |
Ah, if we keep this up, we will be the bane of the audiophile community. I mean, how will reviewers cope with no longer being able to use the terms tubelike and electrostatic-like to convey describing amps that sound slow, dark, and easy or speakers that sound fast and revealing???
Yes, Doctor, your memory is correct. It was CJ gear with the Quad ESL988. We listened with CJ Premier 140 monos and CJ ART II. Then, we later tried a big Classe power amp. Neither would allow one to us to remove our smoking jackets or put down the Dostoevksky, "I say, old Rex, be a good dog and fetch daddy's slippers."
No worries Grant, I'm buying... |
Fatiguing, jaw dropping, and neutral are all in the spirit of things!
Though fatiguing has become more than ubiquitous, it's true, a shrill or bright system doesn't leave anyone I know fatigued. Annoyed, irritated, or wincing, yes. Fatiguied, no.
Grant, you really hit the nail on the head. I've heard a lot of systems like so many of us. Never has my jaw ever dropped. I've been suprised or impressed, and sometimes, incredibly so, but never to the point where I was 1% close to jaw dropping. I find tracking those who tend to use it to demonstrate over time why I need to take their opinion with a grain of sale. My favorite is when someone makes what many would deem a small change, and then uses the term jaw dropping. Reviewers are probably more guilty of this than anyone, which is why reviews have become so utterly worthless. This phrase should hereby be outlawed, and I say we get involved whenever we see someone use it here.
Neutral, should be relegated to a term like accurate; something I always feel the need to challenge. I have no idea how accurate or inaccurate a component is, and I've never met anyone who had any competence in doing so, despite their confidence in being able to. Likewise, the more I think about it, as much as the term neutral is used, the less I feel any component could be described as neutral. Even the so called straight wire with gain component to impart some identifiable sonic signature. Well, perhaps a passive preamplifier comes closest to being deserving...
Bill, is a hot stamper worse than a box mover? |
Yes, "tubelike" is also one of my favorites. Good job, Newbee!
Grant, I believe you make the most excellent point, about half of the people using this never having heard a tube amp. I'll say the other half has heard (and, maybe even, owned) a tube amp, and they still have no idea what a tube amp sounds like. In my own, admittedly contrarian, opinion, a tube amp sounds EXACTLY the opposite of what they are normally described as. Instead of being distorted, veiled, thick, slow, warm, and ripe, they are MORE upfront, lively, engaging, clear, and bright.
Still, I just cannot get past "self effacing". Definitely the most useless I've ever encountered. I mean, when a component finally gets up, and begins making fun of itself, I'll agree that it's self effacing. This particular review pushed me over the edge, since it was an expensive component, written by a reviewer who has always come across as a fantastically nice guy, but one who knows little about audio equipment. Sadly, he's writing for the biggest publication in North America. |
Mrtennis, a quantitative world, one without adjectives of the type we use, is simply one desired by the so-called objectivists.
As an example, reviewing bar b que ribs qualitatively and quantitatively: "The meat was tender, yet not to the falling off the bone stage. My only complaint was that things were just too salty." versus "I performed three measurements on a section of meat, having stripped the fat, and 3.4 mm from the bone, averaging 6.55 whatevers. Via an evaportative method, 600 mg of sodium residue was collected per kilogram of edible content."
Reviews of most things outside of audio follow the subjectivist model, and the world is comfortable with that. For whatever reason, audio does not follow suit, despite a long history of sound and measurements often not showing the best of correlation. High end audio does not have to be a physics or engineering exercise. |
Howard, was that a Mrtennis review?
Honestly, despite whatever he tries to say, a world without adjectives (or, adverbs for that matter) is one incompletely developed, and of little use to one beyond the most elementary understanding. One cannot perform subject review or analysis, which as a scientist and engineer, I will argue is far more important than objective analysis, without the use of modifiers of the nouns and verbs. Analytical tests provide the numbers, but advancing the craft requires an individual to transcend the data, keep an open mind, and shift towards the model of an artist where patterns are seen, things are viewed in subjective terms, and the next step is reached.
This site is not geared toward the reader of The Audio Critic (whose editor, Peter Aczel is literally hard of hearing) or Stereo Review. Measurements have their place, but in the end, just about every Audiogoner cares far more about the way his components sound than how they spec out.
Zaikesman, you ALWAYS enrich the threads you participate in! Here, you nailed one of my all time favorites; electrostatic - like. As Grant explained tubes do not sound anything like what most people say they do, so do electrostatic speakers. Again, I hear the opposite of the conventional wisdom in regards to electrostatic loudspeakers. To my ears, they are MORE slow, caramel colored, rich, relaxed, liquid, and soothing. My term for Quads, Innersounds, etc. is "pipe and slippers" speakers. |
I was in search of "vinyl like" sound from my CDs. It was driving me to try some desperate things only an audiophile would do. We call them tweaks, the rest of the world calls them stupid...
I scattered my CDs all over the driveway, and began to walk on them, and even jump and down on some that I felt were especially poor sounding. Scuffed up the playing surfaces pretty good. Yes, I was able to emulate the ticks, pops, and skips, but it still didn't have that overall relaxed, easy to, natural sound of a good old fashioned record. I heard concrete is more effective than asphalt, but I haven't had time to try it yet... |
