View Full Version : "Big - Old - Legacy - Separates"
So that some can get an idea of where I'm "coming from", here's an extract from a post on another forum, which banned me for being too outspoken and to quote the forum operator "being a slow learner".
Marco, if you feel this is not ok then apologies in advance and delete what you think is not good for this forum or free speech. regards -JC.
JCBRUM ....
Let me get something out in the open straightaway.
British designed HiFi led the world on the basis of re-producing a recording as closely as possible to the original live performance, and provide excellent technical equipment to do it. Particularly loudspeakers. The whole world demanded our products, on the back of excellent research done by the BBC and others.
However things changed for the worse with the introduction of hype, smoke and mirrors, and dubious claims for "magic" components, simply designed to part gullible enthusiasts from vast quantities of their cash, and with little real merit in hifi terms.
Companies which came to prominence in the 1980's and are now struggling to maintain interest, have ruined the reputation of British HiFi, with their silly and misleading sales techniques, and the equipment they make often sounds awful because it distorts the sound, and followers call it "musicality". They even typed out special sales scripts for their silly salesmen to learn, and re-gurgitate to the punters, complete with foot-tapping and head nodding actions. I am told some salesmen still use these techniques today at shows and other places.
None of these firms is a patch on the excellence of Radford and Quad in their day. Although technology has now advanced hugely and is still advancing at a blistering pace. There is almost no area of hifi where something designed competently in the last 12 months, won't beat something 5 years old.
However "HiFi" and recorded music go back a long way. Well over 100yrs, in fact records were on sale in 1895. I have played some old records on my kit and the songs are delightful.
However back to hifi. Mostly it's about playing pre-recorded music, and unlike Linn said, it's principally about choosing good loudspeakers. You may take it for-granted that in this day and age you can provide a good signal to the amplifiers.
So how do we decide which is a good LS, well some would say by listening to it. But that is not the best way because our perception and judgement is heavily influenced by all the junk we have been listening to so far. We are far too prejudiced, at least initially.
Instead lets try and work to a specification and lets see where that leads.
Many people think the bass response is crucial for various reasons. Well the truth is that there isn't much deep bass, in most live music. Consider the available instruments, the commonest of which is the "double bass". The lowest note of which is about 40Hz. The human voice goes down to about 80Hz even on "Ole Man River" stuff.
There are only 4 instruments which can go lower:- the harp and the bottom 3 notes on a grand piano = 30Hz. A Church Organ = 20Hz. And an Octocontra Bass Clarinet = which goes much lower, but only two have ever been made in the whole world, and they're not portable or working at the moment.
So by setting a lower requirement of say 60Hz flat and just a bit of fall off at 40Hz you aren't going to miss much most of the time, and there are ways to add what's necessary anyway.
The sort of requirement is met today by a recently designed 6" or 7" drive unit in a good enclosure, BUT NOT BY OLDER DESIGNS, because the drive units just aren't up to it.
Lets now look at the higher frequencies. A "soprano" can hit around 1kHz. No real instruments operate above 4kHz. And no-one over the age of 30 can hear anything above 10k anyway.
You can see now why a 78rpm record from 1930 can sound really good, with a frequency range of 150Hz - 5kHz, if it is played correctly. (which is very very difficult to do)
Accept it ! even if you include harmonics, an upper frequency response extending to 20kHz is adequate, and probably overkill. So we have to employ a tweeter to supplement our bass driver. In that respect a good tweeter, correctly designed and implemented will do all necessary.
The critical bit is the crossover , so lets dump it and use separate amplifiers to drive the bass and the tweeter units. We can now use an up to the minute active filter/crossover using very sharp and steep separators to provide very clean signals to the amplifiers and drive units.
As long as we provide a nice well designed cabinet, which helps the above specs rather than hinders we have a beautiful and comparitively small loudspeaker, which does everything required to play music perfectly. You just don't need big or old designs.
Aahh, you say but what about the Octocontra bass clarinet enthusiasts amongst us ? Well the answer is easy, just add a sympathetically designed Sub-Woofer, specifically designed to operate 60Hz and lower, using the same active technology. I've tested it down to 10Hz and it works.
So big loudspeaqkers are totally un-necessary and all you need is a perfect signal to feed them.
If you listen to the recordings of the "Vienna New Years Day Concert" which are available for about 40 yrs and probably more, you may notice that in 1975 irrc the changed from analogue to digital recording, with considerable benefits. Today it's possible for us to listen to the exact same recording that the producer hears when he is making the recording. No analogue copies, it's the same digital file. So nowadays we can all possess the digital "masters" if that's what they want to release.
Modern computer equipment can play that "digital master " perfectly without any faults at all ! and all we need is a dac that's up to the job and we have reached Audio HiFi Nirvana.
You would think a competent and thoughtful loudspeaker designer would design an appropriate dac and put it in his Loudspeakers ready for our use together with a remote volume control wouldn't you ?
<Discuss>
Hi jc,
I'll watch this one with interest. As long as you refrain from 'slagging off' PFM, and any of their members, moderators, or administrators, and stick to the hi-fi subject, I have no problem with it.
Good luck and play nice! If I get a chance I'll contribute later :)
Marco.
Ashley James
17-03-2008, 17:17
The acoustics in most solidly built sitting rooms (British for example) are such that they usually augment the low end, which is why most people settle for 6.5" two way speakers. "In room" they sound pretty well balanced, whereas larger ones often excite room resonances and sound boomy. However others definitely need extra bass and customers may opt for a Subwoofer or bigger speakers.
The amount and type of bass in modern recordings varies enormously, much more than a few years ago and quite a few have loads of energy below 60 Hz, others simply extend the duration of notes above 60Hz to make them sound louder and lower. Therefore I'd agree in principal with JC, but point out that there are enough exceptions for a manufacturer to have to produce alternatives.
I certainly agree that the bullshit of recent years has clouded issues and the true objectives of a hi fi system seem to have been forgotten. Instead vague and meaningless descriptions are used to describe the "experience". I'd even suggest that many posting on audio forums are actually unhappy with the sound they are getting but in denial about it. The fact is that there hasn't been worthwhile progress and prices have risen exponentially, which is the opposite of what's happening on the Pro Audio and normal consumer electronics side.
How is it that the cost of equipping a record studio has dropped from over half a million fifteen or so years ago to about £15K for a far better sound now, that TVs cost a fraction of what they used to, but some hi fi has risen to absurd levels without any justification at all?
It's not surprising that Cambridge Audio are making substantial inroads.
Steve Toy
18-03-2008, 02:56
How is it that the cost of equipping a record studio has dropped from over half a million fifteen or so years ago to about £15K for a far better sound now,
You and I inhabit different planets because much mainstream music is very poorly recorded these days given loudness wars and the general need for compression to make low res and compressed recordings in order that they sound nice through iPods and bedside table portable stereos.
The cost may have come down but unfortunately so has the quality.
Your product should do well in this mass ephemeral market but not with folks who actually do know a good sound when they hear one.
I'm no Luddite as you've suggested elsewhere because computer audio, accompanied by smaller and more capacious RAM chips and bigger storage capacity hard drives, will bring us in the near future the kind of resolution for one single track that hitherto would have been afforded to a whole CD in terms of resolution, but only if the discerning market remains big enough to demand it. This compares to the utterly useless (in terms of resolution - 1/10th of Red Book CD) MP3 formats used with iPod Shuffles that are basically just 1990s technology in a cute and overly marketed package. An iPod of any description is only a bit better than a Sony Walkman from 1985 so please cut the bullshit.
I compared directly an iPod with a decent CD player costing over 2k back in 2006. The iPod was boom 'n tizz, its timing all over the place, it sounded dynamically flat and was utterly uncommunicative in comparison. For you to even suggest that any ipod could even compete with a CD player costing £500 let alone one costing thousands to me is desperate marketing appealing to the gullible and ephemeral and not to the genuinely discerning. Such statements to this effect are utterly devoid of any sincerity, of that I feel certain.
You can convenietly ignore, sidestep or 'forget' this particular concern of mine here and play the role of the NuLab politician if you like, but the fact remains that in pursuit of some desperate attempt at market dominance you may have forgotten any notion of real excellence in recorded music replay.
jandl100
18-03-2008, 07:56
I think that an important issue here with a small-ish 2-way speaker is the amount of air that can be moved.
My feeling is that there is no substitute to loudspeaker diaphragm area if you want to re-create the sound (dynamics, and sheer scale) of a large orchestra (100+ musicians belting it out) or a rock band in full blast.
I really don't think that a little 2-way can do that. By choosing such a loudspeaker you are severely limiting the breadth of music that can be reproduced with a reasonable and believable facsimile of reality.
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 08:45
You and I inhabit different planets because much mainstream music is very poorly recorded these days given loudness wars and the general need for compression to make low res and compressed recordings in order that they sound nice through iPods and bedside table portable stereos.
The cost may have come down but unfortunately so has the quality.
Your product should do well in this mass ephemeral market but not with folks who actually do know a good sound when they hear one.
I'm no Luddite as you've suggested elsewhere because computer audio, accompanied by smaller and more capacious RAM chips and bigger storage capacity hard drives, will bring us in the near future the kind of resolution for one single track that hitherto would have been afforded to a whole CD in terms of resolution, but only if the discerning market remains big enough to demand it. This compares to the utterly useless (in terms of resolution - 1/10th of Red Book CD) MP3 formats used with iPod Shuffles that are basically just 1990s technology in a cute and overly marketed package. An iPod of any description is only a bit better than a Sony Walkman from 1985 so please cut the bullshit.
I compared directly an iPod with a decent CD player costing over 2k back in 2006. The iPod was boom 'n tizz, its timing all over the place, it sounded dynamically flat and was utterly uncommunicative in comparison. For you to even suggest that any ipod could even compete with a CD player costing £500 let alone one costing thousands to me is desperate marketing appealing to the gullible and ephemeral and not to the genuinely discerning. Such statements to this effect are utterly devoid of any sincerity, of that I feel certain.
You can convenietly ignore, sidestep or 'forget' this particular concern of mine here and play the role of the NuLab politician if you like, but the fact remains that in pursuit of some desperate attempt at market dominance you may have forgotten any notion of real excellence in recorded music replay.
Steve
The distortion on old studio kit is blindingly obvious, where the new stuff is amazingly clean and clear. The way recordings are produced varies enormously but you can still hear the improvements on most of them if you have equipment good enough to do it.
If I read this and other Forums the overwhelming impression I get (and many who contact us comment similarly) is that people have systems that just aren't good enough to do the music justice and that they are blaming the music for what amounts to a poor choice of kit. They are not happy and some actually point out that their iPods sound better.
If you understood the technology and what we've said, then you'd expect our speakers to be better and you'd hear that they were. But you don't and you have a bias which precludes rational judgement.
I have to say that I don't like the way many records are produced for a variety of reasons, but even the worst are enjoyable and musical if it's your type of music. Therefore whatever you may think, it's our system that's musical and you and a few other detractors who are in trouble and "can't get involved in the music" on some recordings. You need better kit.
And whether you like it or not, the audio electronics in numerous PMPs are just as good as in the best CD players so if you play lossless or equivalent, they'll sound just as good. Also, because MP3 encoding is benign, they'll sound really good as well, just slightly dull and closed in.
However, all digital devices produce out of band hash which upsets some amplifiers. This is why certain companies squealed that "CD wasn't ready yet", it was and they weren't and if you have one from this category, you're wasting your time trying to make comparisons.
One of our customers tried out tests on a load of shop assistants who wouldn't believe and iPod could be any good - basically they picked it out as better than a £1000 CD player several times on the trot in a blind test.
As they used to say: "There's none so blind as them that will not see"
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 08:49
I think that an important issue here with a small-ish 2-way speaker is the amount of air that can be moved.
My feeling is that there is no substitute to loudspeaker diaphragm area if you want to re-create the sound (dynamics, and sheer scale) of a large orchestra (100+ musicians belting it out) or a rock band in full blast.
I really don't think that a little 2-way can do that. By choosing such a loudspeaker you are severely limiting the breadth of music that can be reproduced with a reasonable and believable facsimile of reality.
And I don't think you understand the limitations of big speakers. Bigger ones, apart there being much less demand, have severe crossover issues that sabotage most of their advantages. I'll explain it in great detail when I have more time, but in the meantime remember that ADM9's have a continuous 100 hour rating about 10dB higher than most 6.5" two way speakers and that there's a optional 40 kilo sub to keep up with them.
They have a much better mid band that quite a few three way speakers, a better stereo image and NO PHASE ISSUES.
It's very simple for any one to evaluate. Simply purchase an iPod shuffle for £39 from any Apple UK store, and plug it into the line in on your hifi instead of your cd player.
Personally I doubt very much that you'll be disappointed with the sound, but the best result is by playing iTunes directly from the laptop/pc over a digital connection to a dac.
good dacs don't have to cost more than £50-£150.
The days of mega-bucks hifi are over.
jandl100
18-03-2008, 10:46
And I don't think you understand the limitations of big speakers.......
Well let's put it this way .... the wallpaper- / anodyne-muzak that was oozing out of the AVI speakers at the recent Bristol Show was seriously wanting in terms of musical involvement or even musical interest, in my opinion.
At the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating ... and your goods are not even on my menu anymore.
What a useless, self-serving thread. Good-Byeeee !!
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 11:05
Anyone with an IQ ought to understand that judgement of sound quality is not really possible when the wife is hoovering or you are at a Hi Fi Show. You don't hear important low level detail and you don't have time to adjust to slightly alien acoustics.
Anyone who can add up, ought to realise that there's an awful lot of music out there and the chances of a dem including something you like or relate to are about the same as those of winning the lottery.
And "musical involvement" strikes me as a meaningless term used to dismiss or praise on a whim. I think you should stick to box swapping and forget about sound quality; It's so much more rewarding.
Hi Ashley,
There are a number of points you raised that I feel I should address.
The distortion on old studio kit is blindingly obvious, where the new stuff is amazingly clean and clear.
Would that be measured distortion or audible (judging by your ears) distortion? The reason I ask is that if it's simply measured distortion some of it may have been responsible for the equipment's inherent 'musicality'. Allow me to explain:
If we accept the fact that all equipment distorts the signal to some degree then effectively (as I alluded to jc in another thread) all we're doing when assembling hi-fi systems is choosing our own brand of distortion, therefore simply making equipment sound "amazingly clean and clear" may remove elements of its sound that initially made it enjoyable to listen to. Getting a system to sound musical is not just about everything being "amazingly clean and clear".
The fact is there is no 'perfect' sound. Your equipment doesn't produce it and neither does any other manufacturer's, so if your design goal with AVI is to produce this "amazingly clean and clear sound" that measures perfectly then you may be missing the mark somewhat. I'm not saying this is how the ADM9s sound, because I haven't heard them, but I've heard equipment designed around the principles I've described above and it more often than not sounds bland and 'soulless'. The sound, although technically 'correct', just doesn't connect you with music in the way of other designs which accept that some form of distortion is inevitable and that factors this into the equation during the designer's voicing process.
In my experience, the best hi-fi equipment is designed as far as possible by ear and by people who genuinely love music and have an understanding of its emotional connection with the listener, not those obsessed by test measurements and notions of 'accuracy'.
The way recordings are produced varies enormously but you can still hear the improvements on most of them if you have equipment good enough to do it.
I agree 100%. But I would boldly suggest that "good enough" is unlikely to be achieved with an iPod Shuffle at the helm. A high quality Red Book CD player (such as I have described before), yes, a top-notch turntable, yes, but an ipod, in comparison to those, most definitely not. Like I've said before iPods are great little things when used in an appropriate context, but as a main source in a high quality hi-fi system, forget it! - At least if you are a discerning listener and are used to first-rate sound reproduction.
If I read this and other Forums the overwhelming impression I get (and many who contact us comment similarly) is that people have systems that just aren't good enough to do the music justice and that they are blaming the music for what amounts to a poor choice of kit. They are not happy and some actually point out that their iPods sound better.
I think you're absolutely right and don't doubt it. Like I said before in another thread, it depends on what your benchmark is. If it's a bog standard fairly unremarkable modern CD player then it's possible an iPod could sound better, but not if you're comparing it to something like my Sony or other players of that ilk.
Remember that not all people on audio forums are those you refer to above. There are a significant number of dedicated enthusiasts who will always go the extra mile to get the best possible performance from their systems (count me in!), people to whom convenience, WAF, and having the latest and most up-to-date technology is an irrelevance - yes the complete antithesis of those you are trying to attract as customers, but that I'm extremely glad to have as members of our forum.
If you understood the technology and what we've said, then you'd expect our speakers to be better and you'd hear that they were. But you don't and you have a bias which precludes rational judgement.
I know Steve very well, and the only "bias" he has is a bias against bullshit - when he feels that someone is trying to 'convince' him that a product is better when his ears are telling him different.
I have to say that I don't like the way many records are produced for a variety of reasons, but even the worst are enjoyable and musical if it's your type of music. Therefore whatever you may think, it's our system that's musical and you and a few other detractors who are in trouble and "can't get involved in the music" on some recordings. You need better kit.
I agree that a good hi-fi system should sound musically enjoyable with all types of music and quality of recordings. However if someone "can't get involved in the music" with your AVI system then that's not necessarily the fault of the listener. It could simply be that the sound falls short of their current benchmark. I've heard Steve's system and it's pretty darn good, even by my high standards, so I'm not surprised that a system with an iPod Shuffle at the helm failed to have him dancing in the aisles!
And whether you like it or not, the audio electronics in numerous PMPs are just as good as in the best CD players...
When you say "best", exactly which CD players are you referring to? I'll bet you £1000 right now that the audio electronics in my Sony CDP are vastly superior to anything inside an iPod!! Care to take the bet? Please do - it will help pay for the forthcoming modifications to my valve amplifier!
...so if you play lossless or equivalent, they'll sound just as good. Also, because MP3 encoding is benign, they'll sound really good as well, just slightly dull and closed in.
I think streaming music via computer audio in lossless format, with a good DAC, has enormous potential and can sound stunning; I've heard it myself. But that's a WORLD away from the sound quality an iPod produces! And MP3 is just shit - period. In terms of performance to a discerning listener there are no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
One of our customers tried out tests on a load of shop assistants who wouldn't believe and iPod could be any good - basically they picked it out as better than a £1000 CD player several times on the trot in a blind test.
LOL. And what would a load of shop assistants know about hi-fi? :lol:
What CD player was used, in what system, and how was it all set up? Give me or anyone else on this forum the same test and I think you might get a different result. Come on, Ashley, you're seriously losing credibility!
As they used to say: "There's none so blind as them that will not see"
LOL! You might wish to try some introspection ;)
Marco.
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 12:25
1. You can hear and measure the hiss and harshness in old mixing consoles and analogue tape recorders too. Quite apart from very high levels of distortion at low frequencies, analogue tape recorders are only as good as a 10 or 11 bit digital one.
2. The DAC's and audio circuitry in PMP's will be as good as the best CD players. We didn't use a Shuffle at Bristol, we were streaming a mixture of Lossless and MP3's at different compression rates via an Airport Express using Macbook Pros.
3. I don't think CD's have adhered to Red Book since the License expired. Your old CD player may have a better mech, but the DAC won't compare with the one in a Cambridge Audio 640C. DACs cost about £2.00 for small companies and pence for big ones, so there's no benefit to be had from a more expensive player. All are made from the same parts and just as different cooks get different results from the same ingredients, so do CD player manufacturers. Often because they haven't red the instructions properly!
4. All modern recordings are produced in 24 bit format on Computers and then dithered down to 16 bit to make CD's. Some audio only tracks on DVD's are 24 bit so might be better.
5. Talking about getting involved in the music is dangerous because it doesn't take account of the way our ears work. Someone may be used to utter rubbish and therefore judge something poor because it's different to what he's used to. The ears and the brain program themselves to "fill in the gap"s missing in your system, so when they hear something different it's difficult to stop this listening process and adapt to the new one, with the result that they think it's crap, when it may not be.
6. I've probably owned or manufactured some of the best CD players made. In the early days, after a Sharp and an middle price Sony I bought a CDP555ES, which was amongst the best of it's day. Later I bought a £2000 NEC that sounded better. It was seriously hi end and not sold in the UK and like a similarly expensive Yamaha I also bought that sounded better than the Sony, it had Burr Brown DACs - they were the best then and you could hear it. We used them in our first CD player in '94 and when their Chief Engineer came to the UK, he visited us with their own Lab Dem Dac. You can imagine his surprise when he was unable to hear any difference between his and ours!
Since that time we've always bought DAC dem boards from the various manufacturers and carefully compared them, having set the levels exactly the same and done the comparisons using an IR Handset to change between them. These days, they sound almost indistinguishable from each other, our CD player, or any DAC we design.
7. The comparison in the shop was done by plugging an iPod and a £1000 CD player into the same system, given the listen a handset and telling him the iPod was the CD player!
8. The problem with forums is that they concentrate on negatives and they probe for weaknesses in people, especially ones that don't and won't toe the line. Quite a few have done everything they can to discredit me, which is moronic. I'm human and riddled with flaws and readily concede that I make mistakes far too often and simply don't know as much as I ought to. However that isn't the point, what is, is that I'm likely to have owned more expensive kit, done more research and learnt more than a good few of you and that you might learn something if you weren't always on the offensive (a general you, not you Marco).
Instead of crabbing everything, why not ask constructive questions and think about the answers. Otherwise it's just a pointless point scoring match.
Or better still ignore a certain speaker and ask general questions.
I'm too hungry to continue!
Ashley,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position in great detail. Unfortunately, though, I don't have the time or the energy to compose lengthy replies a dozen times a day. I know where you're coming from all too well, and I think you know exactly where I'm coming from, too! ;)
However, I must correct you on this:
Your old CD player may have a better mech, but the DAC won't compare with the one in a Cambridge Audio 640C.
{Cough, splutter}. I think not!!!
I suggest that you read the thread on Audiocom International in the trade room (who modified both my Sony X-777ES AND DAS-R1 DAC; specifically the bit where Mark outlines why the Sony is so good in the first place, what modifications he's already carried out to my player, and what further modifications/upgrades are planned to take place shortly. Remember, I'm not just using the X-777ES player on its own. The Sony DAS-R1 is a seriously hi-end separate DAC.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=301&page=2
Check out post #14 in particular, and #32 on page 4. You might also want to take a look at the internal of the X-777ES shown in Mark's link in post #14.
It bears no resemblance whatsoever to what's used in the Cambridge. The fact is both DACs inhabit totally different leagues in terms of performance. In the interests of factual accuracy it might also be a good idea if I showed your reply here to Mark and let him comment ;)
I don't think CD's have adhered to Red Book since the License expired
I totally agree, and more's the pity!
Marco.
An Avi cd player is pretty good, and so are the best sony's, but they all suffer from being "yesterdays" technology and fragile to boot.
One is far better off with a Mac which can play digital files better than any CDp.
And you have all the benefits of a digital library on tap, instead of using those old fashioned shiny disc things to hold the digi-files. We aren't talking analogue grooves here you know !
:gig:
Steve Toy
18-03-2008, 13:10
Marco,
An iPod Shuffle is pissed on from a great height by a £500 Rega Apollo and the stream of piss already reaches terminal velocity from this player on its way down never mind from your Audiocom modded and updated DAC above it, which as I understand is a significant upgrade for streaming computer audio files, lossless FLAC of course.
So, Ashley, if an iPod produces an "amazingly clean and clear sound" then either your active speakers don't have the resolution and dynamic range to show up compressed digital for what it really is or you are losing your hearing acuity with age. Either way, you simply cannot make silks purses out of sows' ears but I will have to salute you for your best efforts at turd polishing.
I'd like to get into computer audio as it happens but only with lossless files or better and through a really decent DAC like the Bel Canto, Marco's beastie or the veneral dCS Scarlatti if I could afford one.
An Avi cd player is pretty good, and so are the best sony's, but they all suffer from being "yesterdays" technology and fragile to boot.
LOL, jc. That's total bollocks. If "yesterday's" technology is better then who cares? And there's bugger all "fragile" about my Sony X-777ES/DAS-R1, the combined weight of which is 40kg!! :eyebrows:
I don't care whether something is old or new technology - it's how it sounds and presents music that matters!
My all-valve Croft preamp sounds better than almost any solid-state preamp I've heard, particularly the phono stage. Vinyl sounds better than CD, top-notch turntables sound better than top-notch CD players, Leak Troughlines sound better than many modern tuners, particularly crap DAB ones, speakers like my Spendors that are based on 1970s principles and technology sound better than most modern loudspeakers, I could go on! ;)
One is far better off with a Mac which can play digital files better than any CDp.
Erm, yes, in your opinion maybe! :lol:
Marco.
Steve Toy
18-03-2008, 13:28
5. Talking about getting involved in the music is dangerous because it doesn't take account of the way our ears work. Someone may be used to utter rubbish and therefore judge something poor because it's different to what he's used to.
Which is precisely why your active speaker system will appeal to those who listen to music through their PC for they are the ones with the lowly point of reference of which you speak.
The ears and the brain program themselves to "fill in the gap"s missing in your system, so when they hear something different it's difficult to stop this listening process and adapt to the new one, with the result that they think it's crap, when it may not be.
My bullshit alert siren is waking up the neighbourhood with this gem.
Filling in the gaps, or mental error correction as I sometimes call it, occurs when listening to compressed low res music. This process along with (high frequency) distortion and phase issues over time leads to listener fatigue. An iPod into a system with genuinely high resolution, bandwidth and dynamic range is pretty unbearable after only a few minutes for this very reason.
Steve Toy
18-03-2008, 13:37
Erm, yes, in your opinion maybe!
In his marketing bullshit agenda more like.
Ashley,
Don't get me wrong, I wish you every success with your ADM9s. I enjoy reading your posts here (and strongly disagreeing with them :D)
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 14:19
Marco,
An iPod Shuffle is pissed on from a great height by a £500 Rega Apollo and the stream of piss already reaches terminal velocity from this player on its way down never mind from your Audiocom modded and updated DAC above it, which as I understand is a significant upgrade for streaming computer audio files, lossless FLAC of course.
Som if an iPod produces an "amazingly clean and clear sound" then either your active speakers don't have the resolution and dynamic range to show up compressed digital for what it really is or you are losing your hearing acuity with age. Either way, you simply cannot make silks purses out of sows' ears but I will have to salute you for your best efforts at turd polishing.
I'd like to get into computer audio as it happens but only with lossless files or better and through a really decent DAC like the Bel Canto, Marco's beastie or the veneral dCS Scarlatti if I could afford one.
Steve
The problem as I see it is that you don't understand the technology and are prone to making assumptions that aren't based on reason.
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/~mattd/sine-wave-speech/
Do this experiment and you'll immediately see how the ears are so easily fooled and why there is such a huge disparity of opinion amongst the people who've heard briefly, but not bought, ADM9s. Those who have bought them are as zealous about them as us. Customers really rate them and, as you know, most have sold very very expensive systems to buy them, some have even bought several pairs!
All the DAC chips you can buy are at least 24 bit and come with explicit instructions on how to use them. Manufacturers will even give you one they've made to learn from. There is no scope for an "artist" to improve on this. All DAC's comfortable exceed the CD's 16 bit spec and they all sound so similar (as they should do) no one would try to argue that one is better than another. However Linn are claiming the one they and we use is the best in the World and it is, because it's at least as good as all the best DAC's. This means that whether you buy an Edirol UA25 for £130 or some end device in a pretty box for several thousand, they should sound exactly the same if both designers know their job, my money would be on Edirol because they are leaders in the Pro sector and going to be a much larger and more knowledgeable company.
You really don't understand dynamic range so I'll explain. If you have an amplifier of much less than 100 WPC, then you are sabotaging the music you listen to because it will be clipping a lot of the time. This is because it doesn't have enough DYNAMIC RANGE. Some amplifiers with this problem have been described as "making music" and it's confused people. They aren't "making music" they are spoiling it if you are in the AVI camp.
ADM9s have a larger voice coil and more power handling than most 6.5" drive units and they are driven directly by an amplifier that produces peaks of 500 watts and an RMS of 250 Watts. They have much more dynamic range than most systems and better control with it. Therefore they will not only be cleaner and clearer at normal levels but continue to be so at higher levels than normal passive speakers are capable of.
What all this means is that we have a DAC we can prove is as good as the best, that we have a preamp using the latest miniature parts to give only slightly more distortion than the noise in copper wire and be immune to digital hash, driving an electronic crossover with big advantages over a passive one to amplifiers with enough dynamic range for modern recordings plus a bit more for luck. And I forgot to mention that passive crossover components have resistive losses that blur the sound and introduce quite a lot of distortion you don't get in ADM9s. And there's a special and very powerful sub for those that need serious bass from a sealed box with a monster drive unit in it.
The whole point of ADM9s is that they are a technically better solution for a fraction of the cost and that's what's upset frantic separatesists. They've spending years pruning and modding and tweaking and they see us as telling them they are wasting time and money and will never get as good a result.
And that's why I'm on this Forum - we've made exactly what people want, they are selling better than expected at an ever increasing rate. We knew there'd hostility from the types on here and thought it worth explaining the benefits in the hopes it might make them think positively for a change.
Steve,
Me too :)
In terms of wine, this discussion is like having an argument with someone who considers a Beaujolais Nouveau superior to St Emilion Grand Cru Classé!
Marco.
P.S Ashley, have you read the Audiocom thread I referred you to?
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 14:46
Not at all if you accept that, as you said, no hi fi system is perfect, therefore they are all doing damage to the music they are playing. All I'm saying is that it's relatively easy to identify and eliminate quite a bit of this damage by designing a self contained system that is more elegant technically than separates. The cost benefit is coincidental.
Where we differ is in the idea that distortions can somehow be "crafted" to be more "musically involving"; They can't and they are often unpredictable, they may also favour one type of music and the expense of another. IMO it's a lack of understanding of this fact that's pissed off so many people and turned hi fi enthusiasts into objects of ridicule outside their own hallowed corridors. I suspect many reading do not really know what is a good sound.
We have friends on the Pro Audio side who visit us to listen and comment and others that send us recordings to see what we think - We're much closer to the ideals than most hi fi enthusiasts or than we are given credit for. We even have Producers in Nashville and Miami using ADM9s and other our older speakers or amplifiers.
Marco you aren't far away so you should come and see us, I think you'd be surprised because you have a potentially excellent pair of speakers. I'm not sure about the rest though except the Technics which at one time was in service with 5000 Broadcast Authorities.
If I may be so bold, Marco, may I suggest that Lambrini might be a more appropriate tipple...
Ed.
Ashley,
I will answer you, but only when you stop avoiding the question I asked you earlier about Audiocom. I'm sorry, but I'm not like 'normal' people who let folk away with avoiding questions ;)
When I ask a question I don't stop asking until it's answered!
I await your reply with interest :)
Marco.
If I may be so bold, Marco, may I suggest that Lambrini might be a more appropriate tipple...
Ed.
:lolsign:
Marco.
Not at all if you accept that, as you said, no hi fi system is perfect, therefore they are all doing damage to the music they are playing. All I'm saying is that it's relatively easy to identify and eliminate quite a bit of this damage by designing a self contained system that is more elegant technically than separates. The cost benefit is coincidental.
I don't doubt there's merit in your approach to system building - indeed it will address the many compatibility issues that exist with assembling separates systems from different manufacturers; that's not to say though that the rewards aren't there for building a carefully thought out and synergistically matched separates system such as others and I own. However, some of the comparisons you're making with ipods, basic modern DACs, etc, compared to very specialist hi-end equipment is a tad ludicrous, I have to say, and it is making you look rather silly.
Where we differ is in the idea that distortions can somehow be "crafted" to be more "musically involving"; They can't and they are often unpredictable, they may also favour one type of music and the expense of another.
Are you denying that an electronics designer can't, through judicious component selection and implementation, voice equipment to his or her tastes?
That's what I was referring to earlier by "crafting" (your word) or creating your own brand of distortions.
IMO it's a lack of understanding of this fact that's pissed off so many people and turned hi fi enthusiasts into objects of ridicule outside their own hallowed corridors. I suspect many reading do not really know what is a good sound.
I agree with your last sentence but don't assume that they're members of this forum. As for "objects of ridicule", personally, I don't care one iota what anyone thinks of me whom I don't know or whose opinions I don't respect.
We have friends on the Pro Audio side who visit us to listen and comment and others that send us recordings to see what we think - We're much closer to the ideals than most hi fi enthusiasts or than we are given credit for. We even have Producers in Nashville and Miami using ADM9s and other our older speakers or amplifiers.
Good for you and I hope you get even more professionals using your equipment, as it is a lucrative market to be in. However my experience of some people on the Pro Audio side is that they wouldn't know what a good sound was if it jumped up and bit them on the bum! So don't presume their comments have more kudos.
Marco you aren't far away so you should come and see us, I think you'd be surprised because you have a potentially excellent pair of speakers. I'm not sure about the rest though except the Technics which at one time was in service with 5000 Broadcast Authorities.
Just "potentially" excellent? In what way could you 'improve' them, then? The Technics is excellent, as you seem to realise. I can assure you that the Sony transport & DAC and Croft preamp are none too shabby either ;)
I'll tell you what, Ashley, if you're supremely confident that I would be impressed with the ADM9s through a computer set-up, and consider it perhaps better than what I'm using just now then why not come up and demonstrate it to me? I'm not fussed about coming all that way to listen to a product I suspect isn't really my cup of tea. It's up to you to convince me differently!
I'll buy YOU lunch and we can do a direct A/B comparison between your ADM9 set-up and my system with an ancient CD player, 1970s turntable and speakers and 'outdated' valve amps. We'll play lots of different music and have a good time, I'm sure. Then I'll post a thread on the forum detailing the results of our findings. It will be fair and square. If I'm really impressed with the ADM9s (and the rest of your set-up) I'll wax lyrical about it, which will I'm sure generate much positive publicity for your product, but equally if I'm disappointed I'll wax lyrical about that, too! You can of course also express your opinion of the outcome.
Are you confident enough in your product to accept my offer? :)
Marco.
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 17:20
1. No it won't the electronics in iPods matches anything in hi end.
2. Yes I am, if you don't do it right, it's wrong and you can't predict how the problem will sound.
3. Hi Fi has been the but of jokes for years and if it's appeared in the broadsheets or whatever, it's because some prat thinks his CD's sound better because they've spent the night in the fridge or some such twaddle.
4. Hi fi enthusiasts often make critical comments about people on the Pro side and I think they are misplaced, we've dealt with many over the years, all have been dedicated to pure and true sound and most have much better ears than hi fi people. Whenever we do comparisons and ask for observations, they are always miles ahead. There are fruit cakes but they are outnumbered 10 to 1 the musicality brigade.
AVI is very much old school BBC where sound quality is concerned.
There's no question in my mind that low powered, clipping amplifiers have held back high quality sound reproduction for years in the UK. People seem unaware of just how far things have progressed and this has to be factor.
5. I haven't got time to spend a day up there (I shouldn't be typing this now) but if ever you are able, I'm sure you'll find out more than you expected.
Marco, :doh: I meant the transports in CDp's are fragile, which they are. I had a string of replacements in my Studer-Revox CDp, and I expect your sony will misbehave sometime soon.
Anyway if you've got the files backed up onto networked storage like a time machine or ATV, then you don't need the CDp ever again.
I was very glad to get rid of a large unattractive nerdy techy box from my sitting room.
CD players are the spawn of the devil, and if we had all been able to afford computers to play our digifiles in the '80's, when they replaced vinyl disks, the damn things would never have been born.
We now have the technology to play the digital files properly, as they were originally intended, instead of the ridiculous contraption which is a CD player.
I don't know whether I have explained my position on CD players adequately, please ask if you want me to elucidate on anything.
regards JC :steam:
1. No it won't the electronics in iPods matches anything in hi end.
That's utter bollocks, Ashley! Have you read the Audiocom thread yet? I did ask you to read it before replying to me again!!
Before I respond to the rest of your post will you please have the courtesy to read what is written in the Audiocom thread regarding the components in my Sony DAS-R1. I have also asked Mark Bartlett to comment.
Cheers!
Marco.
P.S Nice cop out with the visit. I suspected as much ;)
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 17:36
I must admit I didn't bother - can I have it again to save me looking for it please.
You can buy a Shuffle for £32 so why don't you all try plugging one into your hi fi. I think it'll be a bit of a shock.
I recommended the M-Audio 2496 some time ago and one chap bought it, fitted it to an on PC and it was so good he put his £2000 Marantz CD player on Ebay. This is an example of what's been happening that's left many behind. It's all better and cheaper now and it's largely due to the Pro Audio side which is so much bigger than hi fi.
jc,
Marco, :doh: I meant the transports in CDp's are fragile, which they are.
Sorry, but it wasn't exactly clear what you were referring to as "fragile".
I had a string of replacements in my Studer-Revox CDp, and I expect your sony will misbehave sometime soon.
Don't count on it! Care to have a bet? And if it does, I've got a spare mech which Mark from Audiocom will fit. I think I'll probably have grey hair and a big bushy beard before that happens, though!
Anyway if you've got the files backed up onto networked storage like a time machine or ATV, then you don't need the CDp ever again.
I'm very interested in hi-end computer audio, but it will NOT replace my Sony CDP - it will be used together with it.
I was very glad to get rid of a large unattractive nerdy techy box from my sitting room.
Fortunately I have a dedicated music/hi-fi room that's separate from my sitting room so concerns of that nature are irrelevant.
CD players are the spawn of the devil, and if we had all been able to afford computers to play our digifiles in the '80's, when they replaced vinyl disks, the damn things would never have been born.
I agree with you when it comes to 95% of the CD players made today, but not the best ones from, say, the late 80s to the mid 90s. That's when CD players sounded 'right'! They were still not as good as top-notch vinyl set-up, though.
We now have the technology to play the digital files properly, as they were originally intended, instead of the ridiculous contraption which is a CD player.
Perhaps that's the case in the best computer audio set-ups, but a high quality Red Book CD player still has much to offer. I know because I own one!
I don't know whether I have explained my position on CD players adequately, please ask if you want me to elucidate on anything.
Nope. You're coming across loud and clear. It's just that I disagree with 95% of what you're saying!! :lol:
Marco.
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 17:44
OK so you've got four TDA1541 Crown S1 DACs which we haven't bothered with since moving to Burr Brown in 1994 because they were 20 and not 16 bit multi bit DACs. We used two in dual co-linear array with the superior Burr Brown Digital filter. They've been obsolete for years too, having been replaced by bitstream parts.
The CDP555ES I had used a single Philips TDA1541 and a Sony Digital filter which is why it was so much better than the Philips stuff, out of band hash was significantly reduced. This what was causing so many problems with certain other Amp companies.
We use two 24 bit WM8741's in our CD player too and AD797's so much better than the old Sony as they should be 14 years later.
I must admit I didn't bother - can I have it again to save me looking for it please.
No problem. From me earlier:
I suggest that you read the thread on Audiocom International in the trade room (who modified both my Sony X-777ES AND DAS-R1 DAC; specifically the bit where Mark outlines why the Sony is so good in the first place, what modifications he's already carried out to my player, and what further modifications/upgrades are planned to take place shortly. Remember, I'm not just using the X-777ES player on its own. The Sony DAS-R1 is a seriously hi-end separate DAC.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?t=301&page=2
Check out post #14 in particular, and #32 on page 4. You might also want to take a look at the internal of the X-777ES shown in Mark's link in post #14.
It bears no resemblance whatsoever to what's used in the Cambridge. The fact is both DACs inhabit totally different leagues in terms of performance. In the interests of factual accuracy it might also be a good idea if I showed your reply here to Mark and let him comment ;)
Now no more from you please until you've read what Mark has written!
You can buy a Shuffle for £32 so why don't you all try plugging one into your hi fi. I think it'll be a bit of a shock.
Not me. If I'm going to waste £32 I'd rather do it on a decent bottle of claret! :lol:
Marco.
OK so you've got four TDA1541 Crown S1 DACs which we haven't bothered with since moving to Burr Brown in 1994 because they were 20 and not 16 bit multi bit DACs. We used two in dual co-linear array with the superior Burr Brown Digital filter. They've been obsolete for years too, having been replaced by bitstream parts.
The CDP555ES I had used a single Philips TDA1541 and a Sony Digital filter which is why it was so much better than the Philips stuff, out of band hash was significantly reduced. This what was causing so many problems with certain other Amp companies.
We use two 24 bit WM8741's in our CD player too and AD797's so much better than the old Sony as they should be 14 years later.
Ashley,
Read what Mark wrote about the TDA1541s properly. They're one of the best DAC chips ever made! They're "obsolete" because they're no longer produced by Philips, that's all, not because they're in any way inferior to what's made now - far from it.
And I firmly believe Multi-bit sounds much better than Bitstream, just as Betamax was better than VHS - both classic examples of marketing getting in the way of performance!!
The fact is newest and latest in hi-fi is not always best in terms of what matters most - sound quality. But as you're a manufacturer selling new products I don't expect you to agree ;)
And what in your opinion is better that's in a Cambridge audio CDP? Please don't tell me you think there's a better DAC in there than four TDA1541s or I'll wet myself laughing!! :rolleyes:
Marco.
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 19:02
Marco - he's wrong as I made clear in earlier Postings. My NEC Japan only CD player and my similar Yamaha both used Burr Brown DACs because they were quite a lot better 20 bit parts and they had better digital filters too. Those old 1541's weren't even full 16 Bit, they were good then, but things moved on long ago. I'm afraid the DAC in a Shuffle is better too.
Philips replaced the 1541 with the Bitstream part that's in the 203 Meridian and it used to stop FM radios working within 100 ft!
Sorry, Ashley, I don't think Mark is wrong - far from it. It will be interesting to hear his thoughts on the matter when he catches up with this thread. This discussion is ridiculous, and rather fruitless.
Answer me this:
Why would a respected seriously hi-end company like Zanden use the TDA1541 in their £40k transport & DAC combination if it wasn't the best sounding chip they could find today?
The fact is my Sony CDP & DAC would completely outperform any ipod, most modern CDPs, and most computer audio set-ups, save perhaps the very best of both.
I suggest you bring your ADM9s up, and an ipod, and I'll book the table at my local restaurant ;)
Until then we will go round and round in circles!
Marco.
Hi Mike,
Have you read the "Does size matter?" thread. I think you'd find it very interesting! In fact, if you don't mind, I'll move your above post into that thread later.
I'm in full agreement with you - big speakers rule! :fingers:
Marco.
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 20:17
Why would a respected seriously hi-end company like Zanden use the TDA1541 in their £40k transport & DAC combination if it wasn't the best sounding chip they could find today?
Marco.
Because, like so much of the hi end, they haven't got a clue! I hope they've managed to find a suitable Digital filter or they will vary enormously depending on what they are connected to.
The bloody things haven't been made for fifteen years!
And they can't play the 24 bit recordings that may soon be available, Gimmell are already selling them.
Because, like so much of the hi end, they haven't got a clue!
Hahaha... Very good, Ashley!
As the popular colloquial expression goes: "Dream on".
Marco.
Ashley James
18-03-2008, 20:59
I don't have to, I've had years of experience of the Hi End and regard it as mostly (there are exceptions) the products of Egotistical and obsessive technicians without broad enough experience or training to do a proper job. Most aren't even qualified. I could describe some of the incompetent crap we've had in the Lab if I had days to spare!
I'm lucky in working with one of the most highly qualified, experienced and Intelligent engineers in this Industry and to be associated with the company designing the Bentley radio for Naim. We could have done it ourselves!
As I pointed out to Richard, everything works better if you have a team around you who get on really well together and care passionately about what they are doing.
I'm not saying you're wrong but that doesn't apply to Zanden, unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Marco.
Audiocom AV
19-03-2008, 10:52
Hello Ashley
I have read some of your comments on DAC technology and while I have not read all of your posts some of the points you have raised on modern DAC’s are interesting. The Wolfson DAC’s are amongst some of the finest DAC’s available today but as I am sure you appreciate it is not all about numbers and figures. For example, compare the datasheets on the WM8741 to the PCM63P-K or TDA1541 S1 or S2 and I would expect the WM8741 to win on specification. But measurement performance can only give you an outline of what to expect in terms of audio performance, the sound quality of the DAC is not entirely reflected in the measured performance. There are many DAC’s that companies believe are sonically superior to the WM8741 that are now several years old or obsolete, the TDA1541 S1 and S2 are amongst some of them, to stress the point we are not talking about measured performance here but sound quality. There are several manufacturers that have chosen to use older DAC technology as preference, AMR CD-77 http://www.amr-audio.co.uk/Templates/cd77.htmutilised the TDA1541, the CD-77 is has received several glowing review and awards and established performance benchmarks at its price.
Then consider Zanden, a company with serious resources and the choice is the TDA1541 S2, another award winner. Also Audio Notes’s DAC 5 uses the AD1865 an 18-bit DAC from 1999, another reference product for many. Technology has moved on, but the TDA1541 S1 or S2 remains amongst the best DAC ever made, period.
Regards
Mark
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 11:49
I don't agree. We used TDA1541 Crown S1's in a DAC we designed before we started making CD players in '94. We moved to 20 Bit Burr Browns because there were audibly better, not only in the two Hi End Machines that I owned that used them (Yamaha and NEC) but also in properly conducted comparisons, therefore our CD player used them too. They also measured better by an appreciable margin and Burr Brown were World leaders in Digital Convertors at the time. Since then, we've produced six more CD players, each carefully evaluated by us and selected others to make sure that the sound quality had improved. By comparison the TDA1541 sounds muddy, slightly harsh and dull.
As an aside Geoffrey Horn was also using a Sony CDP555ES with the TDA1541 in it and he was so impressed at how much better the Burr Browns were in our CD player that he built a DAC to go into his Sony. Martin helped him with it.
In the past, we never used anything other than DAC manufacturers Demonstration PCBs for comparison, because very few hi fi companies do as well and it's a waste of time trying to find one that's been done properly. Now things have changed, many more DACs are up to standard including some very cheap ones that I've already mentioned. The only problem that remains is there are still amplifiers around that don't like the out of band hash and so give unpredictable results with different DACs.
There are an increasing number of 24 bit recordings available too and 24 bit DACs are a must for professional use.
I don't agree.
LOL. Somehow I didn't think you would! ;)
I think you're too obsessed with measurements, Ashley, and don't do enough listening. Clue: ears often detect things oscilloscopes don't - and they're not always imaginary, either.
I think we should settle this with a simple listening test. Forget about measurements; I'll bring my Sony transport and DAC down to your factory and we can compare it to any CD player or computer audio source in a system of your choice, and then see what happens. Your top AVI CD player would be good. We can use the ADM9s, too, and kill two birds with the one stone.
Are you up for it?
Marco.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 12:13
Marco, not only do we listen extremely careful to all the changes we make but we have loads of friends and enthusiasts as well as Pro Audio people who we invite over to do the same.
I'm terribly sorry but the TDA1541 Crown S1 DAC was discontinued many years ago and replaced by Philips with the Bitstream thingy. In Philips CD players (Quad CD66) is sounded pretty Naf but it was OK in others, especially when used with Sony's vastly better digital filter. That was 14 years ago and the things have moved on by a considerable amount. I guarantee that the not only will the twin Wolfsons be better but also the analogue circuitry too. Look up AD797's and compare them whith was was available when your Sony was made. They cost much more than the DACs and there's more of them.
Listening on its own is hopeless because your ears are so easily confused or deceived, the only way to design anything is to back up measurement with listening tests and with comparisons, all done in properly controlled conditions with exact level matches.
Measurements mean everything and we've never ever seen anything that measures wrong and sounds good. We have seen things which haven't been as bad as the measurement suggest though.
I'm terribly sorry...
Why?
...but the TDA1541 Crown S1 DAC was discontinued many years ago and replaced by Philips with the Bitstream thingy.
And that automatically makes it better, does it? :lol:
You are under the misapprehension that newest is always best. Also, given your commercial interests, it doesn't suit you to admit that both Mark and I have a valid point.
Let's cut to the chase, Ashley... Are you up for what I suggested? Because it's the only way you'll ever convince me (and other knowledgeable people reading) that you're right. And if I come down, I'm not interested in measurements, because as Mark correctly points out, they don't always tell the whole story - just what you and I think of the results, subjectively.
Anything else more written here on the subject is just froth.
Marco.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 12:25
Marco - you're welcome to bring your CD player down here and do a comparison, just make sure that I have about a week's warning because we're always quite busy.
I'll even buy you lunch!
Don't expect huge improvements, just more clarity, a little smoother and a bit more space round things. I'd keep your CD player anyway because it's good enough, what you need is better amp/preamps really.
Ok I'll contact you soon and we can arrange something :)
what you need is better amp/preamps really.
Interesting. Can you tell me where you heard ECS EA-1 monoblocks and the Croft Charisma-X preamp, and in what system? A breakdown of the components used would be good.
Marco.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 12:37
I've not heard any of it, but I'm willing to bet!
If a 30 watt Valve power amp beats 200 Watt Monos, there's something wrong somewhere. Provided they are properly designed, bigger amps always sound better.
We've got a little 30 Watt Class A amp here we use for sine wave tests and it doesn't sound anywhere near as good as our Amp-Paks which are well over 100 WPC but Class B.
I've not heard any of it...
That was bloody obvious! :lol:
but I'm willing to bet!
How much? :eyebrows:
Marco [now planning his next upgrade on the proceeds]
P.S The reason the Yaqin 'won' is because I now like the presentation of an all-valve amplifier combination. You would have undoubtedly preferred the EA-1s, which are without doubt superb solid-state designs.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 12:49
I'll bet you'll prefer the presentation of something with about one 1/10,000th of the distortion!!!!!!!
I doubt it, but we'll see!
I don't doubt that the distortion figures you quote are accurate, as you will have measured them, but if you can't hear it as causing a negative effect then it doesn't matter ;)
The fact is, when I listen to the Croft/Yaqin combo I don't sit there thinking: "Jeez, listen to that distortion!". I sit there thinking: "f*cking hell this sounds amazing!" - And that's all that matters. Some forms of distortion/coloration are pleasing on the ear, and I don't care if you don't think it's 'hi-fi'. I would disagree with that notion, anyway, as we've already agreed there are all sorts of distortions present with equipment, so what difference does it make what type it is?
Solid-state equipment, in comparison, IMO sounds 'grainy', lacking in tonal colour, and nowhere near as communicative and expressive in the midrange. Basically, music is much more interesting to listen to with a good valve amplifier & synergistically-matched speaker combination. And the Croft/Yaqin/Spendors are certainly that!
Marco.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 14:50
And a Series 1 Land Rover seems fine until you spend the day in a Rolls-Royce Phantom.
You always rate the best you've heard until you hear something better, then subject to your being able to adapt (if it's a massive difference), it will be as though someone has turned on the lights and you can suddenly see what you've been missing.
Mmm... Very good, Ashley!
I tell you what, you're really building up your products as being superior so let's hope that when I hear them they deliver... ;)
I'm always fair in my appraisals of equipment, but also ruthlessly honest!! Trusted ears that have already heard them weren't overly complimentary.
Marco.
Ashley James
19-03-2008, 16:02
They are talking crap!! And they were being blinkered and narrow minded, or what they have is so awful and the difference was too great for them to compute.
I threw away lorry loads of awards when we moved here, we've always been known for the best possible sound quality, it's just that you lot on here are into things which, as I've said already, are an anathema to us.
We're very much in the tradition of accuracy and neutrality and proper engineering. We think Hi Fi was hi-jacked some years ago by companies with different objectives, with the result there is a sort of "anything goes" if it's musically involving policy, along with another that allows people to imagine they can hear all sorts of things when they can't possibly.
Years ago I had visit from someone with what I considered crap, he sat and listened, complained about the lack of a turntable and announced that he couldn't get involved in the music. By then I'd have told him to piss off, but I didn't need to because his wife did instead. She told him she's always thought he was deaf and should couldn't understand how he could put up with the awful row he was making at home, that he wasted hours pratting around "tweaking it", it still sound horrible and he'd wasted money on it too. Now when he was offered something good looking and sensible, he couldn't even tell! It was hysterical and more logical than you might think. Women have better hearing than men and wives often comment on their husbands bizarre hi fi traits.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.