Sound and Vision The Bristol Show 2008

[Steve Toy]

Unfortunately Marco was unable to make it yesterday so I made an instant decision to go alone and basically just jumped in the car completely unprepared apart from the Satnav. This meant that I had no music in my bag and was therefore at the mercy of whatever audiophool tinkle favoured by many exhibitors out of the mistaken belief that this is what is required to show off their systems' music-playing strengths... I was also without notebook and pen so please excuse me for lack of vital information like the name of the particular exhibition in some cases where I'm not able to rely on memory. :doh:

I left at ten am, reaching the gates of the fair city of Bristol some two hours later. There was nowhere to park near the exhibition so I dumped the car at the other side of the city in an expensive and dingy multistorey and caught a cab to the Marriot.

At 12:50 I finally made it through the revolving doors with signs making it quite clear that this was trade-only day. This was not a problem thanks to Arthur of the Funk Firm who had prepared an exhibitor's pass with my name on in advance. :)

Arthur was demonstrating his mats, armtubes and fully-modded LP12. Given that he has a pending patent he was unable to make any of his turntables actually play any music so for this reason I imagine he'll be very tired by the end of the show. However, the engineering prowess of his designs seems to more than speak for itself. I certainly look forward to hearing the finished product in the near future. Arthur, best of luck with getting the patent sorted out.

The show itself was extremely busy and this was only trade day so some rooms were so full of people there were almost queues forming outside. I didn't really have time to spend much time in each and every room so I had to be quite selective and perhaps incredibly selfish regarding where I spent my limited time.

World Audio Designs were making some pleasant sounds indeed through their valve amp and speaker kits fronted by a Garrard 301.

I had the pleasure of meeting Ashley and his friend who has registered here as jcbrum. I found them to be very pleasant and interesting chaps. The AVI computer audio, active speaker and sub system I thought was a very competent system at its price point, representing excellent value for money for those placing convenience and a minimum of fuss ahead of audiophool nerdery and all the associated domestic disruption. However, for it to outperform a system costing over £17,000 the system would have to be incredibly badly set up or ill-matched. Good at what it does, the AVI system won't be replacing what I have any time soon. It ticks all the right (technical) boxes but doesn't really get the juices flowing for me.

The Exposure/Focal room was quite impressive and engaging at the same time but I didn't stay long in there.

I had a nice chat with Terry Miles of Spendor who assures me that Marco will be able to have his SP100s modified to R Specification as he is the owner of them from new. What they don't want is folks buying them second hand and then having them modified. Fair enough. The speakers certainly look nice and will sound great with decent kit. The listening room was busy though and I didn't feel like asking anyone to put on some music to my tastes.

The Arcam system into the new Focal 1007 standmount speakers was actually a very nice system that certainly exceeded my expectations. I had a great chat with Mark of Focal and I think we share similar ideas on how a hi-fi system should play music. These new speakers would sound brilliant with my system (and a new CD player.) I'm certain of that.

Naim were making some good sounds in all four of their dem rooms but I tend to take that pretty much for granted these days. This was the first time I've heard DBLs. They actually look a lot nicer in the flesh than in pictures. They sound pretty stonking too. I particularly enjoyed the CDS3/whatever amps/Allæs system but then I've always had a soft spot for Allæs anyway. Naim do things differently, always have. It's just a question really of getting what they are a about and liking it. I do on both counts. What stops me from going down the Naim route good and proper is affording what I'd ultimately just have to have. Give me £50,000 and I'd in all probability go out and buy a CDS555/552/500/Allæs system.

The star of the show for me was at the very end. For the first time I heard the full GamuT system. Both Jeremy Baldwin of The Right Note in Bath and Lars Goller of GamuT were very pleasant guys who made me feel very welcome in the Audio Reference room. I began listening to two tracks on the GamuT system which I think was a compilation put together for Dali. This system does not impress immediately but what happened to me was that about a couple of minutes into the second track, which was quite rocky and rhythmic with good guitar melodies too, I became aware that my journey to audio/musical nirvana had ended. The system just got out of the way and allowed the music to gently and subtly grab my attention and engage me in a way no system has ever done at a hi-fi show before anywhere, ever. This really was quite a moving revelation for me.

This system just seemed to have a very rare quality indeed where timing is concerned. I mentioned this and Lars was happy to point out that his primary consideration upon designing the system from front to back was addressing the issue of time alignment and phase coherence. This is a psychoacoustical concept that some audiophiles will just never get. Others may get it sooner or later. I suspect that the objectivists, measurement freaks and all those who disregard the psychoacoustic processes in listening to and enjoying music will probably all fall into the 'never' category. The brain is a powerful machine and how it connects with emotions needs to be addressed; listeners really should not be treated as potentially gullible fools by cynical designers of an objectivist persuasion. The enjoyment factor can be very real indeed. It can also be conspicuous in its absence.

This review makes interesting reading:

http://www.gamutaudio.com/media/pdf/reviews/CD3_HFC07_collection.jpg

notably the following:

The analoue output stage was 'tuned' using psychoacoustic rather than measured approach when it came to component choices. The selection relied on listening results more than objective analysis, although the specs are said to be very good.

Suffice to say that if the funds become available I'll be in the market for a GamuT CD3. It's an awesome beast of a player. If any digital server can pull off the tricks that this player can I'll be very surprised.

[leo]

Nice write up, I'll be going sunday, I'm looking forward to hearing these ADM9's, hope they are as good as the hype:)

[Steve Toy]

ADM9s are good for the money but are definitely not as good as the hype. This is just my opinion though.

[jcbrum]

I've read a few posts on the forums generally, which say that AVI's choice of music for demo'ing the ADM9s at Bristol is odd.

One poster referred to it as unfamiliar oompah music IIRC.

Well, Ashley believes in playing a wide choice of ordinary stuff, rather than specially selected trick demo tracks.

The oompah music referred to, I think, was in fact "American Patrol" as made world famous by Glenn Miller in the 1940's. Anyone over the age of 80 would of course immediateley recognize it. (YNWOAN).

AVI were not only using their own music library, but tracks from anyone who brought their stuff along for a listen.

The "American Patrol" track was interesting to some because in fact 3 recordings were available from 1956, 1948, and 1942. It was good to be able to compare the differences from a time when recordings were just changing over from direct cut disc masters to tape. So one of them was from an early stereo tape master, before stereo records became widely available.

All 3 recordings would have been released on 78rpm shellac, and one of them had such a large dynamic range it was very difficult indeed to get it onto a disc at all.

Secondly, and of particular interest to me was that one of the three recordings was a compressed mp3, whilst the other two were full bit rate (1411kbps) wavs. So far no one has been successful at correctly identifying the mp3.

Also the large dynamic range of one track demonstrates that the ADM9s will go very loud indeed, as well as being able to re-produce the background whisper of the the theatre ventilation system in the quietest passages.

I had a very enjoyable day at Bristol on Saturday, and met many genial forum contributors for the first time.

Regards to everyone, JC.

[Steve Toy]

There was a lot of background noise coming from outside the room at the show particularly where the AVI room was so being able to appreciate the dynamic range was going to be difficult. Based on what I heard it perhaps wasn't my cup of tea but I may find much more enthusiasm for the ADM9s in a more favourable listening environment.

I do think it is a great product at its price and will undoubtedly be appealing to professionals who enjoy listening to music and don't want all the tweakery associated with more traditional hi-fi setups. No doubt it will be a huge success and this is something that I genuinely would like to see. It certainly gives the likes of Bose a run for their money.

Meanwhile I'd like to welcome John whom I met in the AVI room on Friday along with Ashley.

Hopefully differences of opinion can make for some lively and stimulating discussions.

[leo]

Well I had high hopes for the ADM9's, they was not too bad but unfortunately not up to the sort of quality I'm used to which I'm sorry to say :( , I was really hoping I could post a great review on them and had full intentions of buying them if I thought they would have suited me, I'm actually hunting for some stand mount speakers since moving home because my floor standers are just too big for the new room

[Filterlab]

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/2103/adm9stm2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

AVI ADM9s


http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7955/22022008235yu3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The Funk Firm

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5541/22022008236kd3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The Funk Firm

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/4445/22022008238os6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/639/22022008240ad5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The Funk Firm LP12 (2 images)

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3715/22022008239eu8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The Funk Firm

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/4792/22022008241ra9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Exposure/Focal

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/562/22022008243pd2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Spendor

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6578/22022008244cj3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/5000/22022008245fu4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/8338/22022008246rl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Focal 1007 (3 images)

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4554/22022008247xy0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Naim DBLs

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/2280/22022008249ac3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Naim/Avid.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3733/22022008250fc6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The star of the show for me (GamuT)

Nice pics Steve. ;)

[jcbrum]

I've faced a lot of criticism on other forums for supporting AVI ADM9's, and accused of being in their employ. I'm not, but I am a satisfied customer.

I sold most of my Studer-Revox equipment and Spendor speakers when I moved over to a Mac/Apple based digital system about four years ago. After a long search and evaluation period I settled on AVI kit for amps and speakers.

It fulfills the dual role of domestic hifi and monitoring for my own recordings, and it's so low cost for the performance and quality of manufacture.

Ashley, the "boss" of AVI and Martin the "founder" and chief designer, have both been very helpful and genial to deal with. They welcome direct contact by anyone interested in knowing more about their products.

Leo, I would say re-evaluate by phoning Ashley and doing a visit to the factory. Bristol really was no place to make a proper judgment, as Steven says, because of the noise levels. You've got little to lose and Ashley usually buys lunch.

[leo]

I understand the shows are far from ideal but tbh there was a lot of kit there that offered much more even in those conditions
The ADM9's are cheap but to me sounded more like a budget system rather than high end, I really hate posting negatives about things but I am always honest in my opinions

I'm more than happy with my diy electronics side of the system, the only thing where I'm limited was the speakers so prefer to keep those commercial

Anyway I'm pleased to hear your happy with the ADM9's

[Mr. C]

I have to share Leo's thoughts, completely under under-whelmed by the sound.
I can see this giving the simplicity & flexibility for the PC audio guys.
However please do not attach the quality sound tag to it, it does fall a long way short in this price bracket.imho.

[Ashley James]

In ADM9's defence I'd point that the most expensive system that anyone has sold so far to buy them has been £17,500, that the average is about £6.5K and today it was £11K and all these people write to say that they are astounded at the improvement in sound quality they've had.

There's no doubt that we picked the right time to introduce them. There is a mass exodus from Hi FI brought about by the unreliability of CD players and the widespread discovery that iPods, especially the Touch and the Shuffle are at least the equal of the best CD players and better than most hi fi systems, if better headphones are purchased. Computer music libraries are here.

Apple's marketing is staggeringly effective and multi room streaming and control are cheap and easy to use, their products look nice in the home and a big TV, a Mac Mini or Apple TV and a self contained hi fi system like ADM9s is exactly what most want.

Hi Fi as depicted on this Forum is the pursuit of a tiny minority and too small to warrant investment for companies like us who have to keep hungry factories busy. There's also a certain element of snobbery attached to the exotica, which I think unwise. It was obvious that ADM9's have stirred up a hornets nest at Bristol. I had a visit from some Naim bigwig concerned that we had it in for them and saying that numerous dealers were complaining of the damage we're doing, Tony Revelle came to see us looking decidedly unhappy about the prospect of £1000's worth of fit and forget replacing £5K's worth of separates + upgrades, especially as a PS3 will work just as well as a front end, will stream music and play Blu-ray! And Rob Follis also visited to discuss show turnout and the way the market is shifting.

It won't affect you lot but I fancy we'll do rather well over the coming year, but big changes are afoot and I think AVI is in a strong position to capitalise on them.

[Steve Toy]

There is a mass exodus from Hi FI brought about by the unreliability of CD players and the widespread discovery that iPods, especially the Touch and the Shuffle are at least the equal of the best CD players


They are not. A couple of years ago I did a direct comparison between my then Naim CDX and a mate's iPod Shuffle into my system. The Naim won hands down on timing, detail and tonality. The iPod sounded boom 'n tizz in comparison and was relatively poor at holding together the musical performance as a whole.

Ashley,

I genuinely wish you well with the ADM9s but please cut the hype.

[Filterlab]

Strange your opinion on computer based audio has changed in such a short time Steve.

[Steve Toy]

Strange your opinion on computer based audio has changed in such a short time Steve.


Rob,

Can you elaborate? If you are refering to my reactions to the Robson demo at the Manchester show I was impressed with the amps and speakers. I also thought that the computer/Benchmark DAC running lossless FLAC sounded nicer than the £2k NAD CD player. MP3 sucks big time through proper hi-fi though.

I heard the GamuT CD3 at Bristol and thought that was an incredibly tough act to follow. Ideally I'll run both a CD player and a music server of some description. I think we could be a long way from getting computer audio to outperform top-notch disc spinners. I could be wrong and will find out in due course.

Apart from that how have my views changed?

[Ashley James]

Steve, you must come and visit us. I'll play you a few DAC's supplied by the manufacturers themselves, then one of ours and then a Shuffle.

www.daisy-laser.com for the CDX2 and www.daisy-laser.nl for the 555 or whatever.

Timing and detailed tonality etc mean nothing to me but we can measure audible artefacts and compare with an established standard, or even set up a double blind listening test.

We had a license to manufacturer CD players years before Naim and Mart was working with Burr Brown 8 bit DACs for military applications years before CD players existed. Don't forget it's our chums that are designing Head for the Bentley radio too.

[Filterlab]

Indeed, MP3 does sound dreadful through hi-fi, but the Touch and the Shuffle both run lossless (or as near as) files. Remove the mechanical interface noise and you've got something that can essentially outperform a of players, although a proper digital output would remove a vast amount of the qualitative 'hold back'.

I agree with you in that top notch disc players are unlikely to be outperformed by an iPod, but direct from a computer is another matter. Personally I thought the sound from the Robson room at Manc was clearly better than the sound in the Audioworks room and the Robson system was a fraction of the cost.

As for your views, I read it wrong, apologies mate.

[shane]

Timing and detailed tonality etc mean nothing to me


Do you mean that you can't hear a difference between a system that does these things well and one that doesn't, or that you don't think they're important, or that because you can't measure them, they don't exist?

[Ashley James]

As far as I'm concerned a hi fi system can only molest music, the better the system, the less molestation (distortion) occurs and more the music wins through.

That's why we have professional recording engineers and musicians using our stuff, they can tell us if a violin sounds like a violin or whatever. Misha Scora or Eric Clapton being examples. there are many others too, like Geoffrey Burgon. We're a choice of those committed to accurate or faithful to the recording, sound reproduction.

[shane]

Yes, but if timing and detailed tonality mean nothing to you, how do you work out what is good sound reproduction?

[Ashley James]

Timing and tonality come from the music, hi fi can only spoil it if it isn't designed properly.

[shane]

So they do exist then, and they are factors that should be taken into account when designing hifi?

[Ashley James]

The terminology means nothing to mean but if you mean; Is the music all that matters, then yes, very definitely.

[Mr Ed]

Timing and detailed tonality etc mean nothing to me


Having wasted too much of my life reading Ashley's tripe, it's now clear that he hasn't a clue and why he can't get anyone to stock his product.

Can I sugest a nice, quiet retirement home, Eastbourne is just about far enough away.

Ed.

[Marco]

LOL, Ed.

I think we just have to accept that Ashley's views on hi-fi are pretty much diametrically opposed to ours, but that's fine in my book because it would be a boring world if we were all the same. I also think he's a thoroughly nice chap, as I'm sure Steve will testify to having met him at Bristol :)

Marco.

[Steve Toy]

Yes Ashley is a nice chap as I found when I met him at Bristol. However, I think he's overlooking the psychoacoustic aspect of what makes a decent hi-fi system connect its listener to the music on an emotional level. The truth (if there is ever such an absolute thing) lies in communicating the musicians' talent and intent on the recording.

Is there a degree of manipulation of the signal involved? I think that it is unlikely given that the music signal is already manipulated anyway by being signified via electro-mechanical means. Phase coherence in the electro-mechanical domain is an issue that doesn't address itself automatically given the inherent limitations of the way we transmit recorded music to our speakers in our listening rooms. Then you have the question of time smear - this being something that is added by any system that in turn detracts from the fidelity of the capturing of the musical event as it was recorded. Time smear is something that can only be addressed by a process of subtraction not addition to the purity of the musical signal.

I think the issue of time alignment across the frequency range is possibly something AVI designers may have overlooked in their (maybe) rather simplistic and reductionistic approaches to hi-fi design using their otherwise perhaps quite solid and commendable engineering principles.

The human ear and brain is, after all, pretty non-linear anyway. The same is far more sensitive to timing issues than anyone from a purely engineering background could ever acknowledge - or measure.


Timing and tonality come from the music, hi fi can only spoil it if it isn't designed properly.

Very true indeed. Have you made absolutely certain that your kit is designed properly to address issues of phase coherence and time smear?

[jcbrum]

Rob/filterlab, hi. I notice you have an apogee minidac on your kitlist.

I had one of those about three years ago and liked the sound. However when the digi-stream stopped and re-started it created a click on the out-put when it re-clocked.

Have you noticed anything like that happening. I returned mine to the supplier.

[Steve Toy]

Ed,

I really would like you and Larry to audition the Gamut range of kit. I think it is likely you'll both be very impressed. I heard it off QS Ref and MW stuff so what I heard was perhaps only the tip of the iceberg.

Lets just say that I've only partly got the time alignment thing before; now it is becoming a must for my listening.

[Steve Toy]

Ashley,

Is it not also a possibility that time delay issues between driver units that occur across the room between speaker(s) and listener have to be addressed somehow through some kind of compensatory manipulation either in the crossover and/or through the use of sloping baffles?

And that is only the speakers we're talking about. After that you've got the cables, electronics (and stands dealing with vibrations/energy transfer) affecting certain frequencies more so over others.

In the case of ADM9s you've got cabinet resonances acting on the sensitive electronics within.

Time delay issues are unlikely to affect the function of fighter aircraft in the same way, wouldn't you agree?

Implementation of your design to its intended use would be the key if you want listeners not to use your kit for anything other than just background music even if played loud.....

[Ashley James]

The whole point of an Active system is to eradicate time smear, time related distortions or phase problems and seamlessly integrate the drive units.

There is more time smear in a passive crossover which reduces the amplifiers ability to properly control drive units. Passive crossover blur the sound and make the bass soft and without proper dynamics.

Putting everything in one place gets a system synergy that isn't possible with conventional hi fi. The reason you have your doubts is quite simply that it's such a big difference it's hard to believe we can be right and so many others wrong.

[Filterlab]

Rob/filterlab, hi. I notice you have an apogee minidac on your kitlist.

I had one of those about three years ago and liked the sound. However when the digi-stream stopped and re-started it created a click on the out-put when it re-clocked.

Have you noticed anything like that happening. I returned mine to the supplier.

Hello, nothing like that mate, just pure clean music. ;)

Apogee did a radical redesign of their clocks in mid 2006 and basically set one low speed clock to correct any jitter and another to reclock for the output. Mine's absolutely flawless in every way.

[Mr. C]

Timing and tonality come from the music, hi fi can only spoil it if it isn't designed properly.

Ashley,

I completely agree with you, and you demonstrated that perfectly in your room at the weekend.

However I will agree times are a changing and those that stick their hands in the sand will get left behind completely agree.
I will also put a little spanner in the works, by saying do you not think the PC audio (as we know it now) will be obsolete in 24 months time?
Have you head the new Dts true master format yet?
Possibly every one will have a level playing field in few years, that just leaves the speakers/amps, better quality source will then lay bare the rest of the system inconsistencies do you not feel?
Then the crunch will come, its amazing how many I-pod/PC audio users have told us there is no difference what so ever in the quality between traditional hifi and server based systems.
What is interesting when the clients bring their sons' along to a demo, they look all cocky and confident that the 'old man' is wasting his time and money, until you hook up the I-pod to the system and compare even a modest £500 cdp, the look on their face is priceless!
Now a £500 cdp is not portable nor does it have GB's of storage, horses for courses.
There is room for both currently, until the next generation of digital media emerges imho

[Marco]

Ash,

The hard fact is, as clever and innovative as the ADM9s undoubtedly are, you'll never sell such bijou little boxes to real enthusiasts unburdened by the restrictions of WAF, certainly not to replace 'proper' speakers in their systems (and you know what I mean by that), nor will such people ever be satisfied with an iPod touch, or such like, as a main source!

I think the ADM-9s and the partnering computer set-up you're promoting is an excellent, good sounding, solution for those who want a simple set-up that delivers enjoyment with music without the headache of assembling hi-end separates systems - and there is undoubtedly a large (and growing) market for you to exploit.

However, attempting to 'convert' enthusiasts such as myself and thousands of others on specialist audio forums such as this, and on Pink Fish, etc, to what you consider as audio nirvana is a virtually impossible task. Most people, particularly those who value the virtues of valves and vinyl (and there are many) just wouldn't be prepared to make the necessary compromise.

I would be very surprised if you got more than half a dozen customers from all the forums where you've been promoting the ADM9s (please correct me if I'm wrong!) That's not because they're a bad product, but because you're preaching to the wrong people. I wish you well though and have no doubts that in the mainstream marketplace you're on to a winner.

Marco.

[Marco]

Hi Tony,


However I will agree times are a changing and those that stick their hands in the sand will get left behind completely agree.


I also agree, but there's no reason why you can't embrace old and new technologies within a system. That's exactly what I'm doing, and will continue to do when I introduce some form of computer-based source to my existing set-up. I don't see why it's necessary to choose one over the other.


I will also put a little spanner in the works, by saying do you not think the PC audio (as we know it now) will be obsolete in 24 months time?
Have you read the new Dts true master format yet?


I certainly haven't, but no doubt Ashley will have read about it. That's the problem with computer technology though isn't it? The 'latest and greatest' is never so for very long!

Going solely down the computer audio route seems to me like a fast-track to never ending 'upgradeitis'. It would do my head in buying a system like Ashley recommends only for it to be obsolete, or totally outperformed by something else in two years time - and then for the same thing to happen again and again... :mental:

At least with a top-notch CD player and turntable they're good for as long as CD and vinyl are around, and I believe that will be for a very long time yet. And when (or if) they no longer exist I'll worry about it then! At least I'll still be able to enjoy my existing (substantial) collection of music on both formats, certainly where records and my T/T are concerned.


Then the crunch will come, its amazing how many I-pod/PC audio users have told us there is no difference what so ever in the quality between traditional hifi and server based systems.
What is interesting when the clients bring their sons' along to a demo, they look all cocky and confident that the 'old man' is wasting his time and money, until you hook up the I-pod to the system and compare even a modest £500 cdp, the look on their face is priceless!
Now a £500 cdp is not portable nor does it have GB's of storage, horses for courses.


LOL. I can't say that I'm surprised as far as an iPod is concerned! I've heard some very good computer audio set-ups though, some of which have outperformed systems fronted by expensive CD players... However, in many cases with more basic forms of computer audio, the user has opted for convenience over (ultimate) performance.

As far as running such as set-up as my main system is concerned, without a turntable in place, or having to forgo some superb valve amplifiers and my Spendors in favour of a solid-state active set-up and 'diddy' little speakers, that's a compromise I'm unwilling to make!!

Marco.

[Ashley James]

We've just done some distortion measurements on Inductors from passive crossovers and rises considerable with higher power inputs. This one of the reasons for "congestion" that occurs on louder and more complex passages in music and, in part, accounts for the far better behaviour of Active Speakers in this respect.

[pure sound]

It's this kind of post that so riled the people at Pink Fish. Vague notions of scientific research without any supporting evidence. I appreciate that this forum is different and is more about subjective impressions than wading through the tedium of providing 'peer reviewed' evidence every time. I applaud its approach in that regard. However, my subjective impression of the system you were playing at Bristol is very much at odds with your repeated claims about the merits of the technology you incorporate in this product. I thought the speakers sounded like small speakers and struggled when asked to play a little louder. Any of the supposed advantages of using active crossovers were not in evidence. Whether your speakers were accurately revealing the limitations of the source you were using or whether they themselves were the problem is hard to judge. I did listen to two different pieces of music both of which highlighted the system's limitations. Suffice it to say that there were a number of demonstrations being conducted that were using passive crossovers in modestly priced speakers which gave (to my ears) a more plausible result. I'm not disputing the possible advantages of a well implemented active system. I'm just suggesting that its inclusion as a design feature does not automatically guarantee a good result. Incidentally, is the crossover implemented in the digital domain? (you don't have to answer that if its confidential!)

[Ashley James]

You've got a nerve! Do you think that I'm going to state that we've made measurements when we haven't! Is that what you do?

We were checking some high quality inductors for the forthcoming passive Neutron 5's and distortion at high power inputs rose to 0.1%! These were good cored, not having a core means high resistance, you have to choose.

No the crossovers in ADM9's are not digital - why should they be?

You're riled because you don't like being told anything, you know it all. That's why so many people increasingly buy direct from us and others, the internet or by Mail order, they really don't like hi fi retailers who simply wont accept they are out of touch and often have an attitude.

If you understood the theory and had an open mind, you'd easily hear substantial benefits from ADM9s.

You love freaky, tweaky hi fi and cannot believe there is any other way. Thank heavens for us people like you are a tiny minority, albeit not on this or a few other Forums.

And therein lies a problem. I was talking to an Italian dealer of pro audio gear the other day, his three outlets turn over between £35-£30 million per annum and he tells me there are five high end audio dealers in Italy who manage under £1.5 million between them. Meanwhile, a friend of mine who runs a Radio and TV shop locally does £1.1 Million and he sells ADM9s regularly. We're already in studios in Nashville and Miami and we're dealing with a substantial number of new enquiries each day.

So you can be as rude and you like, you can dismiss us or any company with a great deal more engineering qualifications and experience than you have from the standpoint of being part of a tiny minority that is slowly disappearing off the radar.

Jolly clever I say.

[StanleyB]

I also thought that the computer/Benchmark DAC running lossless FLAC sounded nicer than the £2k NAD CD player. MP3 sucks big time through proper hi-fi though.
Big deal about the DAC1. I know of a little £100 DAC that could easily do the same just as well.
As for your views that MP3 sucks big time: it all depends on how well the source material was converted, and through what DAC process it is subsequently replayed.

Are these ADM9's better than my NS1000M?

[jcbrum]

Yes. I tried that, Sensimilia.

I'm doing a comparison with atc100a's at the moment.

the atc's go a bit louder, but the mid on the avi's is much better.

The sub is giving me ag at the moment because the floor is booming. It's great if you put it on a shelf but it's too heavy really.

I'm going to get a couple of steel wall mounts for an arc welder and try that. they're only about £25 per pair.

I suspect that the answer is to mount it on a pile of bricks to load the floor more heavily.

It's looking good though, I reckon the avi's will out-perform the atc's, accepting they are now a twenty year old design, yet still cost nearly £10,000 new. I bet they're not selling many of those. In fact they might not be selling much of anything. I had trouble finding a dealer within 50 miles, and had to depend on a s/h dealer to locate a pair.

I was only interested anyway because a pf'er said they were unbeatable, but I don't think that's true. "High-end" people often believe a lot of baloney in my experience.

[Marco]

It's looking good though, I reckon the avi's will out-perform the atc's, accepting they are now a twenty year old design, yet still cost nearly £10,000 new.


Interesting, JC. How would you say the AVIs compare to the ATCs?

I rate ATC speakers in terms of their overall design and the drive units used, but have never been totally convinced by the quality of the amp packs in their active designs.

Marco.

[pure sound]

Ashley. The difference is that I don't go wading into audio forums with my chums, and telling everyone that what they are doing is wrong, that the equipment they use is obsolete and that they should all buy what I make & sell because its better than what they have regardless of what that is.

I sell a small range of equipment via a network of retailers. If customers are interested, they can visit these retailers, have a demonstration, compare it with other similarly priced alternatives, take the product home if they need to and bring it back if it doesn't suit them. Remarkably, all this can be done without insulting their intelligence or questioning their ability to listen.

I don't take kindly to reading the sort of unsubstantiated claptrap you and your chums come out with about passive speakers, about how one can't buy wide band output transformers anymore and how anything other than an iMac as a source belongs in a museum.

I also don't attempt to spread questionable tittle-tattle about how this company or that company are having problems. That would hardly seem to be helping anyone.

I have found a niche for what I do and its going ok which suits me fine.


If I were you I'd be watching my back. If what you are doing really is so revolutionary & groundbreaking then it's inevitable that someone with more money and a manufacturing capability in China will be along shortly with a better & cheaper product.

Nerve? I don't know if I've got one but I certainly touched one!

[StanleyB]

"High-end" people often believe a lot of baloney in my experience.
Quite true. I stopped listening to music long time ago, and got more interested in the performance of the equipment based on how it handled the music. To this day I have yet to find a bass unit that can outperform the ribbed JBL's for pure air displacement. Or a set of speakers that can out perform a set of Cerwin Vega AT80 for sensitivity and scare factor. But I guess the high-end folks wouldn't understand that sort of performance. It ain't cricket after all:scratch:.

[Marco]

To this day I have yet to find a bass unit that can outperform the ribbed JBL's for pure air displacement. Or a set of speakers that can out perform a set of Cerwin Vega AT80 for sensitivity and scare factor


Scare factor? Hahahaha... Love it :lol:

By all means come and have a listen to my 90db efficiency, 8ohm load, Spendor SP100s with 12" bass units driven by ECS 200W monoblocks. I'll play some Tiesto at levels that will rearrange your intestines. I suspect that will introduce some "scare factor"... :eyebrows:

I agree with you about "high-end people", in some cases.

Marco.

[StanleyB]

The AT80 has a sensitivity of 103dB. One of the tricks my mates and me used to do is to flick a lighter on and watch the AT80 put it out.

[Marco]

LOL, nice one.

I reckon you could do that with the Spendors with certain tracks when they're shifting lots of air. Track 7 on 'Elements of Life' by Tiesto is one of them. There's an explosion at the beginning that would cause a f*cking earthquake, played at appropriate levels, and blow you out (your seat), never mind the flame on a lighter! :lol:

Marco.

[jcbrum]

Marco, well I've been taken to task for saying it, but iirc in the 80's atc's used standard amp designs available from standard sources like trade and fanzines.

I don't think they had anyone who could design an amp from scratch, around unfamiliar components, and the only way to beat the opposition is get an edge by using new better components such as o/p transistors and new unconventional techniques.

So they ended up copying someone else's amp, and achieving mediocrity, particularly by todays standards.

Also iirc they never got the mid range quite right, because they concentrated on getting the bass and top to sound quite full. This compromised the mid.

They do go very loud though, and are easily capable of making your ears distort.

There again the avi's will do that, just not quite so loud. the first time I heard adm9's at full sustained wick I couldn't believe they stayed in one piece. Martin says they will run for hours without blowing.

I like the atc's and to some extent the "big speaker" sound, but I don't think it's accurate and the avi's definitely are, especially on voice.

Of course the issue is 100hz and down. Assuming you need 30hz (which a lot of recordings don't) Then the avi sub is necessary. It's very difficult to get any sub sounding "right" and I find the suggested settings can be improved. I use 100hz and 5 clicks with my speakers and the bass sounds similar to 100a's. both unfortunately boom at the moment but I'm working on that.

The best bass at reasonable cost is given by Brio's and they make the 100's sound very "old fashioned" but for voice I still prefer the small speakers.

I wouldn't pay £10,000 for atc100's, in fact I don't think I want them at all.

I wouldn't pay £6500 for Brios because although they sound good I don't want big speakers in my sitting room.

The adm9's at £1000 all in, are just such good value It's a no brainer till you get past £3k for dac/amp/spkrs imo.

[jcbrum]

I've just read some earlier posts on this thread and see that you have spendors Marco.

I sold mine, but I think they are in a different and better league than ATC's. What say you ?

[Mr. C]

Hi Tony,



I also agree, but there's no reason why you can't embrace old and new technologies within a system. That's exactly what I'm doing, and will continue to do when I introduce some form of computer-based source to my existing set-up. I don't see why it's necessary to choose one over the other.




I certainly haven't, but no doubt Ashley will have read about it. That's the problem with computer technology though isn't it? The 'latest and greatest' is never so for very long!

Going solely down the computer audio route seems to me like a fast-track to never ending 'upgradeitis'. It would do my head in buying a system like Ashley recommends only for it to be obsolete, or totally outperformed by something else in two years time - and then for the same thing to happen again and again... :mental:

At least with a top-notch CD player and turntable they're good for as long as CD and vinyl are around, and I believe that will be for a very long time yet. And when (or if) they no longer exist I'll worry about it then! At least I'll still be able to enjoy my existing (substantial) collection of music on both formats, certainly where records and my T/T are concerned.



LOL. I can't say that I'm surprised as far as an iPod is concerned! I've heard some very good computer audio set-ups though, some of which have outperformed systems fronted by expensive CD players... However, in many cases with more basic forms of computer audio, the user has opted for convenience over (ultimate) performance.

As far as running such as set-up as my main system is concerned, without a turntable in place, or having to forgo some superb valve amplifiers and my Spendors in favour of a solid-state active set-up and 'diddy' little speakers, that's a compromise I'm unwilling to make!!

Marco.


Morning Marco,

My point of the original post was to say just that, a mix of the 2 ideas can work well and will serve as both a good back ground, ease of use, low storage space, very flexible music dispensing system.
The other will allow you to listen to the music with satisfaction and enjoyment.

With reference to the Dts Master format, I meant to say HEARD IT the technology is alive and running now (we have this format on demonstration ), and its pretty damn good for first generation start, it is applicable to both Music and movies.
A lot of people have swapped over from tradition Hifi to solely PC audio and considered it an upgrade, however when they hear a properly set up and constructed system it far out reaches their own obtainable performance, hence why a good 70% go back and purchase a quality red book transport or CD player to compliment their newly formed system.



I've heard some very good computer audio set-ups though, some of which have outperformed systems fronted by expensive CD players...Marco.


Would you be good enough to list the PC audio system you heard that is connected to your above comment please.

As for 'Diddy' little active speakers, they are right for some people, domestic circumstances dictating their personal choice.
I have heard 'small' passive bookshelf units sounding quite sublime, however there were not the avi variants!

This brings us back to scale, dynamic headroom and the ability to truly re-create the musical passages being sampled.
Full range speakers are the only way to do this (providing your room can accommodate them!, music below 30hz?, of coarse there is!
You need the 'whole' picture to genuinely present the whole sound, anything else falls short.
It purely depends on how far short you are willing to accept, this is not a snob statement or my member is bigger than yours sound-bite, when you have the ability to sample the music from so many different angles (book-shelf/stand-mounts/medium/full-range or sub<>sat packages, evetually it becomes clear how the sound forms/driver interaction/parts of the 'whole' slot into place in your room.
Every thing we do in Audio is a comprise, its down to the individual on how much or less those comprise their are prepared to accept.

[jcbrum]

In order to maintain a balanced view it should be remembered that for most people HiFi is a tool to do a job, and therefore be regarded as a "servant" rather than a "master". Some dealers forget this relationship and get confused over the provision of what is in effect, in most homes a "utility"

Here in Birmingham it is particularly noticeable, but there is a web site which gives very good advice in a balanced way, provided by a dealer who has been in business for more than 30yrs and has had excellent audio engineering experience. I think the uncertain, or uninformed, may depend on his advice.

http://www.fwhifi.co.uk/

Personally I find that on a correctly specified computer system it is possible to improve considerably on older, more traditional, "legacy" methods.

[Marco]

Morning Marco,

My point of the original post was to say just that, a mix of the 2 ideas can work well and will serve as both a good back ground, ease of use, low storage space, very flexible music dispensing system.
The other will allow you to listen to the music with satisfaction and enjoyment.


Afternoon, Tony ;)

I agree, and it's precisely that approach I intend to follow. The thing is though the latter I have highlighted is far more important to me than the former, so any computer-based source will have to deliver on the same musical enjoyment level as my CD player and turntable. If I can't find something which does that then computer audio isn't for me, although having heard a friend's media player-based set-up I suspect that it is possible.


With reference to the Dts Master format, I meant to say HEARD IT the technology is alive and running now (we have this format on demonstration ), and its pretty damn good for first generation start, it is applicable to both Music and movies.


Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. I may look into it in more detail.


A lot of people have swapped over from tradition Hifi to solely PC audio and considered it an upgrade, however when they hear a properly set up and constructed system it far out reaches their own obtainable performance, hence why a good 70% go back and purchase a quality red book transport or CD player to compliment their newly formed system.


That's interesting and pretty much tallies with my own thoughts. I think half the problem for people is owning a quality Red Book transport or CD player in the first place, and not that many do because there aren't that many around any more. At least not what I consider as one!

The problem is that unless you've got such a machine - one that's been properly engineered and designed from the ground up and that doesn't come from the same universal parts bin as every other 'Tom, Dick and Harry' CD player on the market then you're likely to consider PC audio as an upgrade or at least think that it sounds as good as any 'bog standard' CD player because all these players sound largely the same, and I'm talking anything nowadays sub £5k.

Above that level is where things start to get interesting because then designers and manufacturers can spread their wings and begin using the highest quality components available, or innovative and unconventional implementations of mainstream components. Of course this doesn't guarantee ultimate performance (as listening to some supposed 'hi-end' CDPs confirms) but it certainly helps. The fact is it's only when you get to hear what a quality Red Book player does that you realise (in many cases) the deficiencies of PC audio. If not, digital audio is simply much of a much-ness and you have no real benchmark from which to judge.

With CD players, and you'll probably disagree with me on this, I really don't think there has been much REAL progress made since around the mid 90s, certainly in terms of transport, PSU quality and chassis construction, which I believe is fundamental to one hearing what's achievable from the Red Book format. It's not just about noughts and ones! Inferior DVD-ROMs, up-sampling, poor quality PSUs, and such like, in my opinion have succeeded to dilute the potential of the original format to the degree that few people now know its true potential, certainly those who have been brought up on the sound of mainstream CD players in recent years, therefore it's impossible for them to make valued judgements on how much of an 'upgrade' switching to computer audio really is.

A friend and me done something interesting recently - we connected up a pretty much mint condition Marantz CD54, which he had obtained for £1 from a car boot sale (amazing I know!) and played it in his system. Now this player is 24 years old, but the key thing is it uses original multi-bit DAC technology and Philips' exquisite CDM-1 Pro metal die-cast transport mechanism, stuff that would never be seen on any mainstream modern player, certainly the multi-bit DAC, and so how do you think it sounded?

Well I can tell you absolutely nothing like most machines these days! It had warmth, resolution, detail and finesse, and bass to die for. It sounded in fact like a good turntable - exactly how CD was always meant to sound! There was no digital 'glare' or the thin, bright 'spitty' quality that leads very quickly to listener fatigue, which is associated with so many of today's CD players. And this is exactly what I get with my modified classic Sony transport and DAC, albeit to a much higher standard. It is experiences like this that serve to reaffirm my belief that in terms of CD replay performance we're going backwards much more than forwards. Aside from the convenience factor, I believe it is the general dissatisfaction of CD replay quality nowadays that's driving some enthusiasts to computer audio, which in some ways is a sad state of affairs.

For anyone interested, there's an interesting article from Hi-fi World on the CD-54 here (scroll down past the Artiston T/T and Pioneer tape deck):

http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/featureshtml/buy2ndhand.html


Would you be good enough to list the PC audio system you heard that is connected to your above comment please.


It was just my friend's Helios media player streaming lossless FLAC files through a PC in his system of Naim CDS2/52/135s/DBLs. Playing the same music through the Helios resulted in a sound that easily outperformed that on CD played through the £6.5k CDS2. It really was rather embarrassing, but then as I know you're not a Naim fan I'm sure you'll find it quite amusing!


As for 'Diddy' little active speakers, they are right for some people, domestic circumstances dictating their personal choice.
I have heard 'small' passive bookshelf units sounding quite sublime, however there were not the avi variants!


I can't comment on the ADM9s because I haven't heard them, so I'll reserve judgement until I do. Suffice to say though that I wouldn't dream of replacing my Spendors with them purely because they're too small and you can't defy the laws of physics. I like to shift some air!


This brings us back to scale, dynamic headroom and the ability to truly re-create the musical passages being sampled.
Full range speakers are the only way to do this (providing your room can accommodate them!, music below 30hz?, of coarse there is!
You need the 'whole' picture to genuinely present the whole sound, anything falls short.


I completely agree, and it is why I will always use large full-range speakers such as you describe. Fortunately I have no need to compromise otherwise. If I ever move house I will always ensure that in the new house I have a separate room for my hi-fi where it is not subject to any considerations other than obtaining maximum performance, and luckily my wife agrees! :eyebrows:


Every thing we do in Audio is a comprise, its down to the individual on how much or less those comprise their are prepared to accept.


That's absolutely correct. With me, I will always seek to recreate as close as possible the experience of listening to music live - this is to me what owning a quality hi-fi system is about. I'm not into small-sounding, unrealistic, pale imitations of such.

Marco.

[Lowrider]

If you understood the theory and had an open mind, you'd easily hear substantial benefits from ADM9s.

Engineering placebo, the worst kind... :doh:

[Marco]

JC,


I've just read some earlier posts on this thread and see that you have spendors Marco.

I sold mine, but I think they are in a different and better league than ATC's. What say you ?


I've only ever heard ATCs (100s) in someone else's system, although I was familiar with many of the components as I used similar ones myself, but that was a long time ago so it would be unfair to judge definitively.

However, from that experience I would say that I liked the ATCs very much (they are fun) but felt that the SP100s have a more neutral balance that's better able to reproduce subtleties within music. Their midrange I feel is also less coloured and the bass more rhythmic and tuneful.

The bass on the ATCs, although well extended, lacked 'texture' and ultimate weight to my ears, as if it was somehow being 'reigned in'. Overall, the balance of the ATCs was 'drier' and less musically communicative as a result. However, I've got no idea how much of an influence the amp packs had on what I heard. I suspect though that they are not the last word in resolution and may impede performance somewhat in an otherwise excellent design.

I always wanted to hear them being driven passively by top-quality external amplification, such as a six-pack of ECS EA-1 monoblocks, or something of that ilk. I'm sure that would be most interesting!

Marco.

[Vinyl Grinder]

I understand it's in prototype stage but man ...I'm really dissapointed .

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/5541/22022008236kd3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Marco]

That's not the big arm, though, Andre.

The big one is a different ball game altogether! :)

Marco.

[Nick]

Here in Birmingham it is particularly noticeable, but there is a web site which gives very good advice in a balanced way, provided by a dealer who has been in business for more than 30yrs and has had excellent audio engineering experience. I think the uncertain, or uninformed, may depend on his advice.

You mean dependable advice like the part about valve amplifiers ??

Puhleez !!

No coincidence that he happens to be an AVI dealer ??

I'm starting to detect a trend around here :D

[StanleyB]

You mean dependable advice like the part about valve amplifiers ??

Puhleez !!

No coincidence that he happens to be an AVI dealer ??

I'm starting to detect a trend around here :D
Come off it Nick. The trend around here might be free speech in all directions. On some sites such posts would be deleted without reason or warning. The fact that we get a chance to read the views of others is not sufficient enough for you to make a point of it that it comes from a AVI dealer. What if it had been Joe Blogg (who is Indian by the way. If you don't believe me, look it up on the net), or the guy next door? I don't believe in the ethos behind many pieces of audio equipment, but what and who is right about something so subjective?
To give you an idea of what I mean: I have had people laughing at my stuff for more than a year now, but less than 10 pieces have ever been returned for a refund out of the 1000 or so sold. So who is right and who is wrong?

[Nick]

Come off it Nick. The trend around here might be free speech in all directions. On some sites such posts would be deleted without reason or warning. The fact that we get a chance to read the views of others is not sufficient enough for you to make a point of it that it comes from a AVI dealer. What if it had been Joe Blogg (who is Indian by the way. If you don't believe me, look it up on the net), or the guy next door? I don't believe in the ethos behind many pieces of audio equipment, but what and who is right about something so subjective?
To give you an idea of what I mean: I have had people laughing at my stuff for more than a year now, but less than 10 pieces have ever been returned for a refund out of the 1000 or so sold. So who is right and who is wrong?

Hi Sensimilia

I'm all for free speech. There does seem to be lot of thinly veiled advertising in some of the posts I've seen. Particularly in the Cog Rot thread where that subject was hi-jacked into a sermon from on high. I've seen similar missives from the same source on other forums.

So excuse my scepticism when a dealer who is being put forward as providing "dependable advice" happens to be in that fold.

I understand that this hobby of ours is very subjective. The way the point is put across is very important. So far the AVI point of view always seems to be presented as fact rather than opinion. This is what really rattles my cage a bit.

I don't know anything about your equipment so how could I comment on who is right or wrong in that case? I do however know some very high class systems based around low powered valve amplification with none of the drawbacks mentioned in the dealer's "Slaying Dragons" section.

I hope that clarifies my position, no particular axe to grind just an observation of continued skewed information. Opinions are great but when presented as incontrovertable fact can be misleading.


Cheers

Nick

[StanleyB]

Hi Nick, I see what you mean about the other stuff. The fact that you don't know my equipment just goes to show how much effort I make to ensure I don't come across as the salesman peddling my own gear;).
Touching on the point about valve amps: I hate them because I always wanted to rush out and change all the valves as soon as the sound sound quality started going down. And have you ever caught a whiff of an exploded selenium rectifier? I myself got a V-FET power amp, and how many people can say they have an amp powered by those things, let alone heard one powered by them? They went out of fashion in the early 80's once Hitachi introduced the large power handling MOSFET amps, which were less complex in their design. But sound wise the V-FET is IMHO still the best sounding power semiconductor ever developed for audio use. The new age audiophiles have no clue about some of the esoteric stuff that got abandoned decades ago due to cost of making them then. I have two direct drive TT that have been gathering dust for decades as I ended up listening to CD. But only a week ago a mate of mine begged me to flog him one of my TT arms once he realised that I had one of the arms he has been after for two decades.

The point I am making is that hard and fast rules are a waste of time in the audio world. Many good ideas have been discarded due to outside commercial pressure. The latest one if HD-DVD. Better than BlueRay, but market forces don't care about that. So we wait till the next fab hits us, even if it is no good. Nano anyone?

[Filterlab]

But Blu-ray trashes HD-DVD technically speaking, in every respect - what do market forces have to do with that?

[StanleyB]

Which revision of Blueray? Many of the features that HD-DVD could master from day one have been added to Blueray REV2 in order to make HD-DVD less attractive. And except for those who own a PS3, all other Blueray players won't handle Blueray REV2.

[jcbrum]

Have you tried a ps3 as a wireless audio streaming device yet ?

They sound really good if you use spdif out into a dac.

They will find any shared music library on the local network and display it for playing using your telly as a display.

All you need is an old pc with a wireless card in it, a £100 dac and your ps3, and wham, digi-library through your hifi !

[Nick]

The point I am making is that hard and fast rules are a waste of time in the audio world.

You and I both agree on that Sensimilia.

Even though I usually run a valve amp I'm having a blast at the moment with a battery powered T amp. :)

[Filterlab]

Well luckily I have a PS3. :) Like any new format there are always issues that take a little while to get up and running, however in terms of data transfer speed and outright storage Blu-ray was always at the front, it was only a matter of time for HD-DVD. Of course every Blu-ray player will be capable of revision 2 attributes as they are all capable of being updated by firmware, and in fact there are only two major differences between 1.1 (and 1.0) and 2.0; local storage capability and an internet connection being necessary. The former will be a tricky one to address as most players do not have a built in hard drive (I see where you're coming from) but most, if not all, Blu-ray players have connectivity whereby they can utilise an offboard drive.

Actually you are right with your market forces comment; Sony made the wise move to pop a BD drive in ever PS3 whereas MS failed to implement HD-DVD in every 360. Whether people like it or not, the gaming market has some serious clout in dictating what format will arrive at the forefront of video technology as gamers are probably the biggest users of it - hours in front of a game at a time.

Personally I haven't used the PS3 as a music source even with my DAC, I have a Mac for that, although I do hear good comments on audio quality if used via digital out.

[Chris Frost]

Having wasted too much of my life reading Ashley's tripe, it's now clear that he hasn't a clue and why he can't get anyone to stock his product.

Can I sugest a nice, quiet retirement home, Eastbourne is just about far enough away.
Wow, when Ed makes a comment like that then the thread merits further attention.

I haven't heard the product so can make no comment there, but what I found most striking was the glowing review in Hi-Fi Choice. You see, as far as I am concerned the credibility of the reviewer (and hence the review) are called in to question when he writes


"When you move over to an audiophile product, it is possible to hear the difference between a 128Mbps MP3 file and the CD original...if you compare the two side-by-side under critical conditions" 2nd page, first column, last paragraph...clicky (http://www.avihifi.co.uk/avid/ADM9-HFC-review-2.html)

In other words this reviewer can only tell the difference between a high compression MP3 and a CD when he's got a good Hi-Fi and when he is really really listening for the differences! Should this man be writing for a Hi-Fi magazine?

I am still interested in listening to the product because it may have some useful applications in my business; but as far as the review goes...oh hang on a second, I've just got a delivery from Saxa. ;)

Regards

[Steve Toy]

What amazes me is how Ashley and his mate JCBrum keep saying that an iPod or other MP3 is as good as any CD player. I will add that this may well be the case through AVI ADM9s but it certainly isn't through a more conventional decent (read proper) separates setup. I remember entering a Sony shop in 1999 to hear a salesman tell me that Minidisc was every bit as good as CD. I asked for a demontration that went on to convince me that it clearly wasn't... Compressed files sound truly dreadful even through headphones unless they are those in-ear bud thingies.

If you think a compressed file is going to sound as good as lossless or red book you either:

a) have an agenda to tap into the lucrative undiscerning lifestyle market while hoping to pick up a few undeserved kudos points from otherwise discerning types who, for some reason (possibly endless dissatisfaction) decide to swallow your hype.

b) are profoundly deaf

c) the sytem used as your point of reference doesn't have the resolution and transparency to show up the differences.

I have heard the ADM9s. They are a lifestyle product to compete with the likes of Bose. They are not serious hi-fi no matter what pretentions their manufacturers may have to the contrary regarding their musical replay capabilities. All IMHO of course.

[Mr Ed]

A little of arithmetic - 1411/128 = 11.02.

This means that there are over 11 times as many 1s and 0s on a CD as an MP3 file.

If you can't hear that 91% of the music is missing, then you need to ask yourself a few questions...

Ed.

[Chris Frost]

What amazes me is how Ashley and his mate JCBrum keep saying that an iPod or other MP3 is as good as any CD player. I will add that this may well be the case through AVI ADM9s but it certainly isn't through a more conventional decent (read proper) separates setup. You don't need a Hi-Fi to tell the difference. AN AV system will do!

I install a lot of AV amps with iPod docks because the dock is the "must have" accessory. Many of these are quite inexpensive amps too - £400, £500, £600 AV receivers with more lights than Blackpool and every feature under the sun. Not exactly what you would call Hi-Fi, but even through an AV amp (and using a DVD player for CD) the difference between an iPod and a CD is big. Sticking the amp on some sort of party music mode normally helps, but even so....:(

Carefuully ripped with the right software I find 192kbps MP3 acceptable. FLAC is pretty good. I'm at a loss to understand how someone could find 128kbps acceptable for anything other than very low level background music, but that's just my opinion.

[Lowrider]

There are AV systems and AV systems, as there are stereo systems and AVI ADM9s... :mental:

[StanleyB]

You see, as far as I am concerned the credibility of the reviewer (and hence the review) are called in to question when he writes

2nd page, first column, last paragraph...clicky (http://www.avihifi.co.uk/avid/ADM9-HFC-review-2.html)

In other words this reviewer can only tell the difference between a high compression MP3 and a CD when he's got a good Hi-Fi and when he is really really listening for the differences! Should this man be writing for a Hi-Fi magazine?

I think that some of us are missing the point here. It is quite possible that the reviewer could not hear the difference between CD and mp3 with the system he tested. Can anyone tell me that they could hear the difference between CD or mp3 on their DAB radio?

As it happens, I can hear the difference on my car system, but that is because it is very revealing. The AVI might not be that revealing, which would account for its inability to tell Jack from Jill. So instead of going up the hill, we are being led up the garden path.

[Mr Ed]

Can anyone tell me that they could hear the difference between CD or mp3 on their DAB radio?


Of course they can't, because DAB is 128Kbps (at best, R3 excepted, which is a massive 192...)

There simply cannot be too many 1s and 0s.

If you can't hear the difference between CD and MP3 then either the system is so lacking as to be total rubbish or the listener is deaf or stupid, or both.

Somehow I feel I can speak my mind here...

Ed.

[Vinyl Grinder]

That's not the big arm, though, Andre.

The big one is a different ball game altogether! :)

Marco.

What ever PT clobber has always been good sounding gear but the presentation has always been SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHIT.

[Chris Frost]

I think that some of us are missing the point here. It is quite possible that the reviewer could not hear the difference between CD and mp3 with the system he tested. What :doh: You're having a laugh aren't you?

The reviewer could tell us that

“Instruments and human voices have an innate sense of rightness about them too, with a treble that extends naturally and a midrange that approaches LS3/5a levels of clarity.” page two, centre column, middle of the second paragraph.

...and these speakers are imbued with...

“…the sort of musical accuracy and honesty that you don’t get at a grand and you might struggle to find even at £5,000” page two, third column, last paragraph.

Yet these 'honest' speakers can improve the quality of 128kbps MP3 to near CD quality? I dunno, this doesn't add up to me. If he can commit in print that these are good enough to compete with speakers costing £5K then I don't buy the "maybe he couldn't tell" line. There's something very fishy about this review :scratch:

[Russell Dawkins]

"approaches LS3/5A levels of clarity"?

I don't think of these speakers as models of clarity - in fact I think they are over-cooked in the midrange and a combination of boomy, boxy, slow and uninformative in range from lower mids through middle bass (80Hz to 300 Hz, roughly).

Clarity is not what comes to mind. I never did understand the widespread respect these speakers enjoy.

[StanleyB]

What :doh: You're having a laugh aren't you?
;)