Different listening equipment for best enjoyment of different audio formats?

[StanleyB]

One avenue of music listening that I cannot remember ever having seen discussed is the suitability of one set of speaker and amp combination for all music listening needs. But equipment R&D has not been based on an internationally set standard. Amplifiers output can be any amount of wattage, whilst speakers can have a wide range of impedances, numbers of drivers, and box sizes.
Playback format R&D has however been strictly controlled. The specifications for each format does not allow for much variation. It's no use cutting a vinyl at 50RPM, just as it isn't a wise move to burn a 18Bit/50KHz CD.

Let's wind the clock back a bit to a period when vinyl was kind and audiophiles were extolling the virtues of the latest turntable/arm/cartridge, tested on their trusted reference amplifier and speaker combination.
Forward a bit to when CD was king and audiophiles tested the latest CDP on their trusted amp/speakers combination.
And finally, let's get back to the present when audiophiles are testing the latest bit rate and sampling frequency on their trusted amp/speaker combination.

But hold one for one second. This trusted amplifier/speakers combination is likely to have been developed and fine tuned with the latest format technology, and possibly the one before it as well. The development aim would very likely be based on getting the best possible performance from the amp or speakers, when used with the particular music formats that it is expected to be used with.

This leaves some uncharted terrain, which forms the crux of my question. Consider the following: can a trusted amplifier/speakers combination designed in the 70's be expected to produce the best performance from an audio file stored on a hard disk, when the designers would never have dreamt that such a playback method was even possible?
Equally, can we take the liberty to assume that an amplifier or set of speakers designed in the era of file based music will have no problems with reproducing vinyl to its best?

This conundrum has been spooking my mind for a while now. It came about after I started analysing the reasons why I preferred certain amps and speakers for listening to vinyl, over different amps and speakers when listening to CD. Then audio files played back from a hard disk showed up and suddenly I needed a different level of resolution from the speakers and amp.
It took me a while to catch on to the fact that the most suitable sounding playback equipment tended to have been manufactured around the time that the format it sounded best with was in vogue. But it could be that I have been subjecting myself to psychological differences, rather than anything else. And that brings me back to the question I posed.

So am I the only one who has noticed that different formats are best played on amps and speakers of that era? Or is it just my imagination that an amp from the vinyl era would perform just as well with audio files, and a modern day amp would reproduce vinyl with the same amount of emotion as an amp from decades ago?

[Alex_UK]

An interesting question Stan, but surely if the amp/speaker combination can cover the frequency spectrum provided by the source, it will be format agnostic? My main speakers are mid 80's vintage, and love being fed a diet of FLAC from PC via Caiman, or vinyl via antique Garrard equally - with the middleman of a budget integrated providing the "juice" in an equally unbiased fashion. Other combinations of relic speakers and not so ancient (but crusty) amps have been similarly satisfying - whatever they are fed by.

So, my opinion is that old stuff copes just fine, but I haven't tried up to date speakers, so maybe they are the game-changer?

[StanleyB]

When CD players first came onto the scene the first thing that we noticed in the workshop was the sudden jump in returns of speakers for replacement of blown tweeters and bass drivers. My assumption was that the faults were caused by the fact that these units had not been developed to handle the wider dynamic range of the music. The frequency bandwidth could not have been the problem, since it was all audio range stuff. Neither would I suspect power handling to be the issue. Ported speakers more or less required the presence of a rumble filter on the amp when playing vinyl, but CD audio brought ported speakers far more to life.
On the amplifier side of things, witness the absence of such things as the rumble filter in modern amps. A frequently used filter that steadied unruly subsonic bass when playing vinyl, especially in small rooms. When playing vinyl on a modern amp the absence of this function must have an effect on the audio experience.
The fast majority of amps developed during the vinyl era were also not designed and tested with music of the kind of dynamic range and speed that CD could achieve. And similarly, manufacturers started to come up with IC output stages such as the STK range. These sounded terrible with vinyl though, but seemed to sound OK with CD. However, they were prone to failure when used with vinyl.

I put all of the above odd equipment failures down to the different requirements placed on the equipment by the difference in the way the music flows through the amps and speakers.

[Firebottle]

....and suddenly I needed a different level of resolution from the speakers and amp.

Er....why?

As we know on this forum, the level of resolution achievable from a top flight vinyl source is astonishing.
Surely the requirement has always been for the best performance, price not withstanding?

:cool:Alan

[Gordon Steadman]

Nope!

Every source I've ever tried sounded best through the Leak/Quad 57's (now Firebottle/57s).

Every time I have been to a dealer to see what is happening, I have come away disappointed in the lack of musical engagement.I used to do that regularly when I lived in London and also visited all the hifi shows I could.

That includes equipment up (!) to the top Krells driving huge Wilson speakers with the Krell CD player. Bloody awful, I lasted about two minutes before I had to leave the room. They were designed to go together - by the deaf for the deaf?

It possible that I prefer the music to the equipment but I have yet to experience what you are suggesting.

[StanleyB]

As we know on this forum, the level of resolution achievable from a top flight vinyl source is astonishing.
Surely the requirement has always been for the best performance, price not withstanding?

Does the total sum of your conclusion boil down to just resolution? Surely there must be more than just that that determines the overall fabric of a musical piece?

[Covenant]

I think some pieces of equipment are 'forgiving' for want of a better word.

[Firebottle]

No, no, no, I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. My post wasn't put as a conclusion at all.

Scale, sonics, musical appreciation (of musicians and listener), clarity, speed, soundstage depth..... I could go on. It's all necessary for the appreciation of the music.

:scratch:Alan

[Marco]

When CD players first came onto the scene the first thing that we noticed in the workshop was the sudden jump in returns of speakers for replacement of blown tweeters and bass drivers. My assumption was that the faults were caused by the fact that these units had not been developed to handle the wider dynamic range of the music.

Hi Stan,

Maybe, but I suspect that it could've been the fact that people were playing music more loudly, as a result of the 'cleaner' sound of CD, and so were driving their amps and speakers harder than ever before, taking advantage of their system's newly found superior 'headroom'...

Let's face it, for most folk back then (although I don't include myself in this), the massive decrease in overall system noise-floor and the complete absence of surface noise, with CD, and thus reduction in distortion, compared with (in many cases) cheap and poorly set-up turntables playing, shall we say, 'less than mint' vinyl, was a revelation.

Therefore, I'm not surprised if when now free from said distortion, they'd be cranking up their tunes to much louder levels than before, thus taking their amps into clipping, and blowing drive units in their speakers!

:gig: :exactly:

Marco.

[Oldpinkman]

Nope!

Every source I've ever tried sounded best through the Leak/Quad 57's (now Firebottle/57s).

.

I'm sort of with you on this one personally - looking forward to those bottles of wine. But my good friend (not into HiFi - our age) regularly goes to Heavy Metal gigs. I'm not sure either component you mention has the balls to do heavy metal justice. And therein lies the dilemma for all HiFi design - a compromise is going to be needed somewhere. I love the transparancy "breathy" realism of the quads, but they're not first choice for front of house monitor for Motorhead.

I also , broadly, subscribe to the view (it was the design principal at Pink) that the goal is accuracy, "closest to the mastertape" I think was our line, and so just deliver the music exactly as it is changing nothing. Again - lovely idea, but tricky to achieve. If you just consider the slightly arrogant "closest to the master tape" claim - on what speakers? In which room?

In practice, a balanced system is a compromise. You don't find a perfect tt, and wait for a perfect arm, and then a perfect cartridge (and all the other bits, room included). You find flawed products which work with each other. And if you have been balancing to traditional vinyl, you end up out of balance when CD comes along. Again, we had this at PT. Although lacking the hardness and sterility of CD, in terms of tonal balance, the PT systems (Anni, Orion, U205) were pretty close to CD (with a decent preamp, with accurate RIAA). And people born and raised on LP12, Ittok, Asak etc didn't like it because it wasnt what they were used to. I have had a response to a thread on here about "trebbly screechy" sounds. I suspect a lot of the "warm" that is liked, isnt just the good warm of not cold, its straight treble roll-off - which means you are missing stuff. It can be quite appealing, if the system you have otherwise shoves screechy nasty stuff down the wire, to roll-off filter it out. But it aint hifi - not by my definition of HIGH FIDELITY. The little valve amp sitting on one of my photos is a great example. My wife bought it for me off ebay from China for headphones. I plugged in an MP3, and gone was the harsh brightness to be replaced by a mellow warmth. Trouble was it achieved that by a frequency curve like a ski-slope above 12Khz due to capacitance in the Mosfets used instead of transformers for stage buffering. I won't go on too much, but "opening up" the amp gave a sound which no longer fixed MP3's but started to sound credible again on vinyl. So - whilst broadly I take the view that a system that is right for one source is right for all sources, there is a balance to be achieved, and maybe some of the sources need bringing up to scratch.

[Gordon Steadman]

I'm sort of with you on this one personally - looking forward to those bottles of wine. But my good friend (not into HiFi - our age) regularly goes to Heavy Metal gigs. I'm not sure either component you mention has the balls to do heavy metal justice. And therein lies the dilemma for all HiFi design - a compromise is going to be needed somewhere. I love the transparancy "breathy" realism of the quads, but they're not first choice for front of house monitor for Motorhead.




Yes and no!! I still prefer listening to my wife's stuff on the Quads even though it may lack the bottom and top end that seems to be the hallmark of the er....'music'

We do have her Battersea power station and JBLs upstairs should she need a fix but even she seems to have developed a preference for the presentation downstairs. Maybe an age thang:eyebrows:

[Marco]

I love the transparancy "breathy" realism of the quads, but they're not first choice for front of house monitor for Motorhead...

<Snip>

I have had a response to a thread on here about "trebbly screechy" sounds. I suspect a lot of the "warm" that is liked, isnt just the good warm of not cold, its straight treble roll-off - which means you are missing stuff. It can be quite appealing, if the system you have otherwise shoves screechy nasty stuff down the wire, to roll-off filter it out. But it aint hifi - not by my definition of HIGH FIDELITY.

...nor mine. Hear, hear (on both counts) :clap:

If a system (or speakers) can't play ALL genres of music superbly well (although it may excel with some more than others), and at decent levels without the sound falling apart, then, for me, it's of bugger all use!!

Marco.

[Yomanze]

Interesting point Stan, and something I've been thinking about recently. I use two different LFD amps, the PA0 SE and PA2M SE. Both very similar circuits, but the PA2M SE has a far far bigger power supply & a lot more damping factor. On simple acoustic music the PA0 SE actually has the edge sounding more immediate and 'illuminated', it sounds a lot like a SET amp but with solid state control (both amps sound more valve than solid state). However, with busier music and more demanding volumes the PA2M SE shines with much more ease and control, with 90% of the 'immediate and illuminated' sound of the PA0 SE. For the vast majority of my music the PA2M SE is the superior amp, but if someone's music tastes revolved around folk & acoustic music then this'd be up for debate. They both play everything well and I'd live with both, but you cannot have absolutely everything, even Marco can't. ;) :P

[Marco]

They both play everything well and I'd live with both, but you cannot have absolutely everything, even Marco can't. :P

Indeed - there is no such thing as a 'perfect' anything in audio. However, I can play everything in my (fairly extensive) and varied music collection, both on CD and vinyl, from Motorhead to Mahler, and it sound stunningly good, in the *right* way for that type of music.

However, that doesn't mean that my system is perfect (far from it); merely that, in terms of reproducing recorded music with aplomb, it is genre agnostic. There is a difference! ;)

What I'm saying, therefore, is if I couldn't approach my system to play a CD of Rammstein, with equal anticipation of hearing a superb and realistic sound, as I would one of Ravel, then my system would be an epic fail.

That's precisely why I could never live with any form of electrostatic speakers (or SET valve amps), much as I admire what they're best at, as what they're worst at, is equally as apparent (and for me also hugely significant). It's essentially a case of having 'too many eggs all in the one basket'.

Marco.

P.S I've moved this thread now into Blank Canvas, which is where I feel the content is best served.

[Oldpinkman]

Ah yes Marco - compromises. We all have to make them, and each make different choices. (PS - it's ESL63 - sorry to be pedantic):scratch:
And getting used to a system balanced around one source, may make it struggle with other sources. But I think I probably have the opinion that if the main amp speaker set up is right for the room, all 3 sources should be equally well served (that should be both sources for me - I don't currently have any digital higher spec than red book). But any system will involve compromises

The main compromise I face at the moment is the living room. Apart from a party wall in a semi-detached house (cue interest in headphones) - I have a 4.5mx3.5m room, and - don't go there - the HiFi, which is part of the AV theatre has to be played across the room (ie the 3.5m dimension). I can't have my ESL63's - the room would go dark, and they need a metre of space every side as a minimum. So my choice of speaker - the ventrical, is determined by the room. It will change in France, although I am still a bit wary having front left and right for the AV system as ESL63's - they're gonna have to be on stands, so don't go looking to see the testicals up for sale on here. The choice of speaker determines the choice of amp - Ventricals are not valve friendly - and hence my dithering over the EAR's which were recently offered on here.
Getting some grunt deep down from the ESL63's is going to involve a sub-woofer, which means a cross-over and brings the power amp into the picture again (lots of control needed). I need to get the boy Jones working on this. Very old unfinished business. Stacked 57's with the right amp do a good job but are just out of the question in the sort of home I have in mind (you know - a house, not a hifi shrine).

But every system is a compromise, and we have to make choices about the balance that works for us. The great thing about this forum is it respects that individual choice, and allows for a wide range of choices made by its members. They wouldn't all be my cup of tea - but I appreciate that others will make choices which work for them. And I would have no trouble enjoying Gordon's system - as long as its his wine being poured. :cool:

[Marco]

Absolutely, old chap, especially the last bit. I'm very happy with drinking both your wine and Gordon's! :eyebrows:

More seriously, if either of you find yourselves somewhere near my neck of the woods, I'd be more than happy to subject you to the delights of Del's home-made cassoulet, washed down with some 'half-decent plonk', where you can then cast your lugs over the old stereogram ;)

Anyway, yes, we all have to choose our compromises in audio. That's always been my mantra. However, the point I was making earlier was slightly different.

Marco.

[Audioman]

When CD players first came onto the scene the first thing that we noticed in the workshop was the sudden jump in returns of speakers for replacement of blown tweeters and bass drivers. My assumption was that the faults were caused by the fact that these units had not been developed to handle the wider dynamic range of the music. The frequency bandwidth could not have been the problem, since it was all audio range stuff. Neither would I suspect power handling to be the issue. Ported speakers more or less required the presence of a rumble filter on the amp when playing vinyl, but CD audio brought ported speakers far more to life.
On the amplifier side of things, witness the absence of such things as the rumble filter in modern amps. A frequently used filter that steadied unruly subsonic bass when playing vinyl, especially in small rooms. When playing vinyl on a modern amp the absence of this function must have an effect on the audio experience.
The fast majority of amps developed during the vinyl era were also not designed and tested with music of the kind of dynamic range and speed that CD could achieve. And similarly, manufacturers started to come up with IC output stages such as the STK range. These sounded terrible with vinyl though, but seemed to sound OK with CD. However, they were prone to failure when used with vinyl.

I put all of the above odd equipment failures down to the different requirements placed on the equipment by the difference in the way the music flows through the amps and speakers.


Sounds like a case of people with poor quality record playing equipment jumping to CD and turning the volume up. Possibly because of the clean backgrounds and to compensate for relative flatness of sound. Good record decks have always had capabilities of providing a wide dynamic range hence the popularity of vintage idlers. I have never had a deck in a hi-fi separates system going back over 40 years that produced levels of audible rumble that required a filter. There is something to be said for newer amplifiers that cover a wider frequency range in terms of use with hi-res digital sources. However decent amps going back as far as I can remember were specified to cover the audible range of 20 - 20,000 HZ.

[Gordon Steadman]

And I would have no trouble enjoying Gordon's system - as long as its his wine being poured. :cool:

Aha, another variable in the playback system. There are definitely times when it all sounds a bit fuzzy:cool:

Oh look Guinness in stereo:lol:

[Marco]

Sounds like a case of people with poor quality record playing equipment jumping to CD and turning the volume up. Possibly because of the clean backgrounds and to compensate for relative flatness of sound

Indeed, and that's pretty much what I said earlier. I also agree with your second point.

I've never even owned an amplifier with a 'rumble filter' (a classic case of applying a sticking plaster, in an attempt to address a problem, rather than fixing it at source), as it would go against my purist principles of keeping the signal path as simple and short as possible, far less felt the need to use such a facility.

Furthermore, I've used many high-quality vintage speakers in my current system, as well as in the past, and none, to date, have exhibited any problems playing CD cleanly and accurately :)

Marco.

[DSJR]

Indeed, the BBC legacy models I seem to have been associated with came to life when fed clean master-grade sources, fruit box vinyl making them sound turgid - but of course it was the speakers doing this, not the turgid fruit-box of the mid 80's anyway...


"If a system (or speakers) can't play ALL genres of music superbly well (although it may excel with some more than others), and at decent levels without the sound falling apart, then, for me, it's of bugger all use!!

Marco."

Marco's comment above should be post of the year I reckon.

[Oldpinkman]

More seriously, if either of you find yourselves somewhere near my neck of the woods, I'd be more than happy to subject you to the delights of Del's home-made cassoulet, washed down with some 'half-decent plonk', where you can then cast your lugs over the old stereogram ;)



.

Very kind. Very tempting (it'll be our local dish if we move where we want to - just up the road from Castelnaudray). I should warn you my daughter is at Uni in Gloucester for another year, so I have occasional grounds to head West. And the wine flow freely in Yalding and Fa (where the field is).

[Oldpinkman]

Regarding filters and blown HiFi equipment, it reminds me of a Heathrow show I did. I think I was set up by the b****ds because they all found it very funny, and all seemed to know this particular CD. We were dem'ing the Ventricals as the new product, using a prototype power amp - the "POP" (all PT prototype power amps, regardless of origin were known as POP - to go with PIP). This one was designed by John Westlake - the digital designer, and never made it to production. It was a git to bias, and ran hot enough to fry eggs (handy on the road at breakfast time). But it did sound good - maybe as good as I've heard. It also was completely devoid of any filters or speaker protection - flat down to DC. There is, apparantly, a "special" version of Eagles "Hotel California" with a similarly broad range. Anyway - whatever - we got to the famous bass notes and the left bass cone shot out. Very embarrassing. Especially as we hand matched all the pairs of speakers and didnt have a matching drive unit at the show.

[Gordon Steadman]

Indeed, the BBC legacy models I seem to have been associated with came to life when fed clean master-grade sources, fruit box vinyl making them sound turgid - but of course it was the speakers doing this, not the turgid fruit-box of the mid 80's anyway...


"If a system (or speakers) can't play ALL genres of music superbly well (although it may excel with some more than others), and at decent levels without the sound falling apart, then, for me, it's of bugger all use!!

Marco."

Marco's comment above should be post of the year I reckon.

Well yes but.... who decides what is a decent level? If I enjoy all kinds of music on my system and at levels that I find quite adequate, then I guess its OK then?

[Themis]

but I appreciate that others will make choices which work for them.
I would even say that other people choices (and compromises) are as essential -if no more- than our own. :)

At least, that's the way I perceive this hobby : a constant evolution. :cool: