Monoblocks

[Haselsh1]

As we approach Christmas once again, I should soon find myself in a position whereupon I might be able to upgrade my old Rotel monoblocks which I have to add are bridged so not genuine mono amplifiers. If I leave valves well alone which, I may not, I have a choice of Croft Series 7 monoblocks at around fourteen hundred pounds or Audiolab’s 8200M’s at around thirteen hundred pounds. These would go with my Croft Micro 25 Basic preamp.
So, 40 Wpc compared to 125 Wpc and 40 Amps of current from the Audiolab’s compared to a totally unknown figure for the Croft’s. I honestly do not know.
My music choice is usually electronic but I listen to whole loads of different stuff.
What do you think…?

[Eisener Bart]

As we approach Christmas once again, I should soon find myself in a position whereupon I might be able to upgrade my old Rotel monoblocks which I have to add are bridged so not genuine mono amplifiers. If I leave valves well alone which, I may not, I have a choice of Croft Series 7 monoblocks at around fourteen hundred pounds or Audiolab’s 8200M’s at around thirteen hundred pounds. These would go with my Croft Micro 25 Basic preamp.
So, 40 Wpc compared to 125 Wpc and 40 Amps of current from the Audiolab’s compared to a totally unknown figure for the Croft’s. I honestly do not know.
My music choice is usually electronic but I listen to whole loads of different stuff.
What do you think…?


Why do you want valves if you listen electonic music?
I don't see any sense.
Find some MOSFET outstage monoblocks.

By the way - I plan to buy monoblocks too.

[Arkless Electronics]

[FONT=Tahoma]As we approach Christmas once again, I should soon find myself in a position whereupon I might be able to upgrade my old Rotel monoblocks which I have to add are bridged so not genuine mono amplifiers. If I leave valves well alone which, I may not, I have a choice of Croft Series 7 monoblocks at around fourteen hundred pounds or Audiolab’s 8200M’s at around thirteen hundred pounds. These would go with my Croft Micro 25 Basic preamp.
So, 40 Wpc compared to 125 Wpc and 40 Amps of current from the Audiolab’s compared to a totally unknown figure for the Croft’s. I honestly do not know.
My music choice is usually electronic but I listen to whole loads of different stuff.
What do you think…?
/FONT]

Well first of all your bridged Rotel's are monoblocks! Monoblocks are much less of an improvement over a stereo amp than is commonly bandied about, (yet another hi fi myth) and depending on exact details, a stereo amp can be better.... It's usually only a really good idea when massive size, weight and heat make a stereo version impractical....

How loud do you listen? The Q500 is average efficiency at 87dB for an 8 Ohm Watt so although 40WPC will drive them loud, if you really like to "bang the head" at times you may want more. Remember though that a 125WPC amp won't actually go much louder than a 40WPC amp...it's counter intuitive but due to the logarithmic nature of human hearing.
Current delivery shouldn't be an issue into the Q500's so it's all down to trying them and seeing which you prefer. The Croft is a hybrid amp with a mosfet output stage so there's no need for it to have any "loosey goosey" valve effects ;)

[Ali Tait]

Ask Alan Firebottle to go on the dem list for his mosfet amp. Could be ideal for you, and a big saving on the price of the commercial stuff, plus you can try at home before you buy.

[Spectral Morn]

Audiolabs will be too dry and sterile for you, walk on by unless you can get an audition in your own system.



Regards Neil

[walpurgis]

Audiolabs will be too dry and sterile for you, walk on by unless you can get an audition in your own system.



Regards Neil

I reckon Neil could be right. I'd sooner use the Rotels than anything from Audiolab (or Musical Fidelity or Cyrus).

[OD1]

Shaun,
Do they have to be Monoblocks ?

Agree you may find the Audiolabs a bit dry, & will not allow you to tube roll to tweak to your taste :eyebrows:
Oliver

[Haselsh1]

Shaun,
Do they have to be Monoblocks ?

Agree you may find the Audiolabs a bit dry, & will not allow you to tube roll to tweak to your taste :eyebrows:
Oliver

No, they don't have to be monoblocks but my current Rotel's give a hugely massive stereo effect so I kind of thought that all monoblocks would do the same. I had also considered a Croft Series 7R.

[Haselsh1]

Audiolabs will be too dry and sterile for you, walk on by unless you can get an audition in your own system.



Regards Neil

Thank you for being so honest, I like that.

[OD1]

Shaun,
My first amp was a Rotel RA1412 (purchased in 1979) which is still in daily use (sold to my Uncle), I loved the way it sounded full & deep in the bass.
I also had an Audiolab 8000A driving small Kef floorstanders (Q35 iirc) but I could not get on with the combination when playing bassy tunes, in fact I would describe the sound as sterile.
To my ears & musical taste, the older Rotel was more involving with the Kefs, but have not heard the newer Audiolab monoblocks.

While I was waiting for my S7 to be built, I was loaned a 7R that had been tweaked to work with a 12bh7 valve. I found the bass a bit too tight (for my liking) when playing reggae & dub (I prefer a rounder/ fatter, some may say "less accurate" bass).
May I suggest you audition both with you pre.
Hope this helps ?
Oliver

[Audio Advent]

Why do you want valves if you listen electonic music?
I don't see any sense.
Find some MOSFET outstage monoblocks.

By the way - I plan to buy monoblocks too.

A well designed amp, valve or solid state should be transparent. If you're thinking that valve amps will be coloured then you're thinking of badly implemented designs. Good valve power amps I've heard have been been fast and transparent and it's only in the bass which had been lacking in control in comparison to some solid state amps.

I listen to electronica and mainly the sounds which cause goosebumps (yeah, it's a figure of speech - I don't literally get them - and I don't like those cliches normally) are rich in the midrange and full of speedy detail. Good valve power amps can do that easily. Rich midranges and good air and smoothness to the upper treble are very beneficial in my opinion.

People do have different ideas of what electronica is though - for me it absolutely does NOT mean Tangerine Dream but does mean modern electronic beeps and blips from the 90s onwards (e.g. Aphex Twin for a well known artist of the genre). So might be we're all talking about different music ...

[Haselsh1]

A well designed amp, valve or solid state should be transparent. If you're thinking that valve amps will be coloured then you're thinking of badly implemented designs. Good valve power amps I've heard have been been fast and transparent and it's only in the bass which had been lacking in control in comparison to some solid state amps.

I listen to electronica and mainly the sounds which cause goosebumps (yeah, it's a figure of speech - I don't literally get them - and I don't like those cliches normally) are rich in the midrange and full of speedy detail. Good valve power amps can do that easily. Rich midranges and good air and smoothness to the upper treble are very beneficial in my opinion.

People do have different ideas of what electronica is though - for me it absolutely does NOT mean Tangerine Dream but does mean modern electronic beeps and blips from the 90s onwards (e.g. Aphex Twin for a well known artist of the genre). So might be we're all talking about different music ...

Sam, we are on exactly the same wavelength here. I am referring to Younger Brother and Shpongle mainly. This is the kind of music I listen to on a regular basis. Everything else is a now and again kind of thing. Regarding amplification though I also agree there as well. I am looking for that liquid, pure midrange and that treble air and sparkle that I just don't get with any solid state devices. Yes I know that this kind of music is very heavily processed but why does that alter anything..? I simply want my music to sound a certain way and that way is via valve monoblocks, through a valve preamp. Regarding goosebumps, I often go cold and shivery whilst listening to music. I love it to bits.

[walpurgis]

I am referring to Younger Brother and Shpongle mainly. This is the kind of music I listen to on a regular basis.

I like those too. And a bit of UnionJack, Hallucinogen and OTT, etc. I've got a couple of copies of the rare 'Pandora's Box' by Megalon, which is worth having.

[Haselsh1]

I like those too. And a bit of UnionJack, Hallucinogen and OTT, etc. I've got a couple of copies of the rare 'Pandora's Box' by Megalon, which is worth having.

Absolutely love the OTT stuff especially the 'In Dub' album, or maybe that is Hallucinogen, can't be sure right now, too much red wine last night.

I am though now thinking along the lines of the Icon Audio MB30 SE single ended monoblocks to go with the Croft preamp until I can upgrade the pre to a Micro 25 R. I am quite sure that 27 Watts in ultralinear mode will be enough and when I want to listen to Acoustic Alchemy, well, I'll still have triode mode. This has got to be the best way forward for me.

[Puffin]

I like those too. And a bit of UnionJack, Hallucinogen and OTT, etc. I've got a couple of copies of the rare 'Pandora's Box' by Megalon, which is worth having.

I never had you marked down for this sort of stuff. I thought you were more Frank Ifield or Val Doonican:lol:

If you like "unusual" electroniyc stuff mixed in with ambientish jazz (sort of in the ECM stable of artist stuff) try Lars Dannielson - Melange Bleu.

I like some shpongle but not all.

Wolfgang Haffner is worth a try (but again not all of it). Other stuff that you might try are :

Alien Chatter - Music For Aliens
Chris Minh-Doky - Nomad Diaries (great bass for the most part)
Tokyo Tower - The Meaning
Lemongrass - Atlantis

A great one to test your foundations is Nils Petter Molvaer - Khmer (another sparse jazzy one with seismic bass)

Track 2 will have you laughing out loud. If you don't subscribe to Spotify or Deezer or the like let me know and I will see what I can do:D

[hifi_dave]

As per your other thread, you are welcome here to compare Croft and Albarry against your Rotels. Then you will know for sure and not be reliant on other people's opinions.

[walpurgis]

I never had you marked down for this sort of stuff. I thought you were more Frank Ifield or Val Doonican:lol:

If you like "unusual" electroniyc stuff mixed in with ambientish jazz (sort of in the ECM stable of artist stuff) try Lars Dannielson - Melange Bleu.

I like some shpongle but not all.

Wolfgang Haffner is worth a try (but again not all of it). Other stuff that you might try are :

Alien Chatter - Music For Aliens
Chris Minh-Doky - Nomad Diaries (great bass for the most part)
Tokyo Tower - The Meaning
Lemongrass - Atlantis

A great one to test your foundations is Nils Petter Molvaer - Khmer (another sparse jazzy one with seismic bass)

Track 2 will have you laughing out loud. If you don't subscribe to Spotify or Deezer or the like let me know and I will see what I can do:D

I'll check those out Rob.

There's a copy of Pandora's Box on eBay at the moment if anybody's interested. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Megalon-Pandoras-Box-CD-FASTPOST-/271980972355?hash=item3f53544943

[kininigin]

Absolutely love the OTT stuff especially the 'In Dub' album, or maybe that is Hallucinogen, can't be sure right now, too much red wine last night.


Yep it was Hallucinogen with the 'In Dub' album! Also love OTT. I listen to probably 90% electronic music and having valves in the chain works well for me! Although i've gone for a mixture of valves and SS as my speakers are active and gives the best of both worlds imo.

[Haselsh1]

I've gone with KEF Q500's as they have the Uni-Q tweeter/midrange unit that gives a truly massive stereo image from all over the place enhanced no doubt by the use of monoblocks. That is my main reason for staying with monoblocks, the image is just so separated and isolated. The Younger Brother album 'A Flock of Bleeps' has sound coming from right next to your ears it is so expansive. This is the imaging I wish to keep and though I may go back to valves, I am so sure Croft Series 7 monoblocks would do just as good for a fraction of the cost. Then combine that with a Micro 25 R preamp...OMG.

[kininigin]

I've gone with KEF Q500's as they have the Uni-Q tweeter/midrange unit that gives a truly massive stereo image from all over the place enhanced no doubt by the use of monoblocks. That is my main reason for staying with monoblocks, the image is just so separated and isolated. The Younger Brother album 'A Flock of Bleeps' has sound coming from right next to your ears it is so expansive. This is the imaging I wish to keep and though I may go back to valves, I am so sure Croft Series 7 monoblocks would do just as good for a fraction of the cost. Then combine that with a Micro 25 R preamp...OMG.

Yes i've owned some Kef's in the past with the Uni-Q Tweeter/Mid-Bass,so i know what you mean about the stereo image which is impressive and helps alot with atmospheric electronica! If i didn't have active speakers then i would certainly be looking at using croft power amps! To be honest though the speaker/amp combo would have to be pretty good to beat what i have and no doubt it can be done but it would be at a cost!! At the moment i have four Quality (Anthem) mono amps perfectly matched to the drivers and to my ears sounds exceptional,especially considering i paid £300 odd for them!

[Dane]

Audiolabs will be too dry and sterile for you, walk on by unless you can get an audition in your own system.
Regards Neil I have Audiolab 8200 Q and P driving a pair of JBL LS 80. Dry and sterile is not what I hear. With my system playing CD's and vinyl they are powerful and linear meaning no sudden dynamics changes from different parts of the music , plenty of details, wide open stereo perspective that's "free of the speakers", well controlled and deep bassline with no "boom" and "slam" and a "laid back" slightly "warm" sound even at high volume. They don't struggle with high volume, but still keeping everything in control and sounds clean and detailed and only gets luke warm even with an hour with bass heavy electronic music that I listen to a lot..Loud!!:eyebrows:. But it handles jazz, rock, pop etc. equally well. So, if crisp treble, exploding dynamic changes and boomy slam bass is your thing, so yes, look elsewhere than Audiolab. But if one like linear power, control, firm bass, details and an amplifier that do not change it's music presentation when one cranks up the volume, but still present itself with a pleasant slightly warm laidback sound, then Audiolab might be the one for you.

[Spectral Morn]

I have Audiolab 8200 Q and P driving a pair of JBL LS 80. Dry and sterile is not what I hear. With my system playing CD's and vinyl they are powerful and linear meaning no sudden dynamics changes from different parts of the music , plenty of details, wide open stereo perspective that's "free of the speakers", well controlled and deep bassline with no "boom" and "slam" and a "laid back" slightly "warm" sound even at high volume. They don't struggle with high volume, but still keeping everything in control and sounds clean and detailed and only gets luke warm even with an hour with bass heavy electronic music that I listen to a lot..Loud!!:eyebrows:. But it handles jazz, rock, pop etc. equally well. So, if crisp treble, exploding dynamic changes and boomy slam bass is your thing, so yes, look elsewhere than Audiolab. But if one like linear power, control, firm bass, details and an amplifier that do not change it's music presentation when one cranks up the volume, but still present itself with a pleasant slightly warm laidback sound, then Audiolab might be the one for you.

I think I know exactly what Shaun is after but I lack the current product knowledge to recommend anything recent but I am very sure Audiolab historical or modern is not it, you like yours, they work for you but there is a reality, depth, dimension and palpability valves do in the mid and trebble that solid state doesn't do, mosfets come close, hybrids come close but in my experience neither fully equal a valve amp, when optimally matched to the right speaker. Many will agree, many won't, such is life.


Regards Neil

[Ali Tait]

If it's soundstaging you are after I think valves are the way to go.

[Spectral Morn]

If it's soundstaging you are after I think valves are the way to go.

I have yet to hear a hybrid or sold state amp do soundstage reality (well the illusion) as well as valves. I have similar taste in music to Shaun, and its music that usually has soundstaging and spaciousness in spades.

But there is myth - not the reality - that valves can't do dynamics and tight extended bass and that isn't so. The right amp with the right speaker and valves can.

Regards Neil

[Ali Tait]

Yes agree Neil.

[Macca]

I'd argue that the amp has very little to do with soundstaging. Okay the quieter it is in terms of noise wil help you pick out the locations of sounds more easily, but that has nothing to do with whether the amp is valve or solid state unless you think valves are intrinsically quieter, which they could be but I doubt there is much in it.

Soundstage is determined primarily by the environment and the placement of the speakers, and the listener, and the extent to which the recording has those qualities inherent to begin with. Compared to the gross effects of those factors, the amp's contribution would seem to me to be fairly negligible.

[Ali Tait]

I wouldn't really agre with that. I have both valve and SS amps I can plumb in, soundstaging is better with the valve amps.

[Macca]

Compared to my ss amps my valve amp has an almost ethereal palpability and tactility (great reviewer speak but it is what I hear) about its presentation - but I don't know if I would class that under the heading of 'soundstage'. I suppose it would help to define our terms. Plus I'm not entirely certain that effect is not an artefact.

[struth]

I think its the amps ability to drive the speakers(that have to be good enough) to produce the soundstage. Often a valve amp has that little bit of, to steal a car term, bottom end torque that just helps things allong, but a good SS can do it too.

[Macca]

I have found that closing the quite thick curtains on the window behind my listening seat makes quite a significant difference to the soundstage, 'bringing it more into focus' as it were. Based on that I would say that if good soundstaging is your bag them look at passive room treatments like that before worrying about the amp's ability to 'image'.

But if that side of things is already boxed off then fair enough.

[Dane]

I think I know exactly what Shaun is after but I lack the current product knowledge to recommend anything recent but I am very sure Audiolab historical or modern is not it, you like yours, they work for you but there is a reality, depth, dimension and palpability valves do in the mid and trebble that solid state doesn't do, mosfets come close, hybrids come close but in my experience neither fully equal a valve amp, when optimally matched to the right speaker. Many will agree, many won't, such is life.
Regards Neil
I have had SET valve Pre and power amplifier and yes, like vinyl and digital they are a different approaches to music enjoyment , both valves and ss can bring you good sound, it depends on taste. But I would say, if you want valves, go for it in the entire hi-fi chain. I have tried ss and valves together and like the all valve sound and the all ss sound better...and personally like ss the most and went all ss. And I wasn't trying to "sell" Audiolab :), just had to disagree on the dry and sterile comment, since I've listening to my amp set with Rega, Snell and JBL speakers, so I know how they can sound with different speakers. That said, they do best with my JBL LS 80, nice combo:)

[Haselsh1]

Yes, once again, I have to agree with the thought on closing the curtains. Also, this time of year things are so much better with the lights out. I have just finished listening to the very first Dire Straits album on CD and vinyl and as usual, I prefer the vinyl. It has more foot tapping ability and is much more lively with the CD sounding rather heavy and leaden. OK so my vinyl needs an upgrade too as it is quite thin and trebly in comparison. This will come with time but for now; back to amplification...!

As I have already said in some thread or other, I am kind of 90% there with what I want from my amps with the biggest recent upgrade being the purchase of the Croft Micro 25 Basic pre. This has dramatically improved the realism and the stereo effect over the Rotel pre so I am fairly certain that I could really do with a Micro 25 R to finish things off. After that, I need to decide between valves or hybrid. Valve monoblocks are seriously expensive whereas Croft Series 7 monoblocks are a fraction of the cost. I will be buying monoblocks as I have heard my current amplifiers in both mono and stereo mode and believe me, there is no comparison.

So, possibly Croft Micro 25 R with Croft Series 7 monoblock hybrids followed at some point with a Dynavector 10X5.

As with all things, nothing is set in stone until I click 'PAY' because I really do like the look of those Icon Audio MB30 SE mono's and I am very familiar with that gorgeous single ended sound. Thank the Lord I stuck with my purchase of the KEF Q500's as those Uni-Q drivers are stunning when it comes to imaging.

Many thanks for your discussions and comments. I seriously value what you have to say. This is very valuable experience on your part.

[Jimbo]

Yes, once again, I have to agree with the thought on closing the curtains. Also, this time of year things are so much better with the lights out. I have just finished listening to the very first Dire Straits album on CD and vinyl and as usual, I prefer the vinyl. It has more foot tapping ability and is much more lively with the CD sounding rather heavy and leaden. OK so my vinyl needs an upgrade too as it is quite thin and trebly in comparison. This will come with time but for now; back to amplification...!

As I have already said in some thread or other, I am kind of 90% there with what I want from my amps with the biggest recent upgrade being the purchase of the Croft Micro 25 Basic pre. This has dramatically improved the realism and the stereo effect over the Rotel pre so I am fairly certain that I could really do with a Micro 25 R to finish things off. After that, I need to decide between valves or hybrid. Valve monoblocks are seriously expensive whereas Croft Series 7 monoblocks are a fraction of the cost. I will be buying monoblocks as I have heard my current amplifiers in both mono and stereo mode and believe me, there is no comparison.

So, possibly Croft Micro 25 R with Croft Series 7 monoblock hybrids followed at some point with a Dynavector 10X5.

As with all things, nothing is set in stone until I click 'PAY' because I really do like the look of those Icon Audio MB30 SE mono's and I am very familiar with that gorgeous single ended sound. Thank the Lord I stuck with my purchase of the KEF Q500's as those Uni-Q drivers are stunning when it comes to imaging.

Many thanks for your discussions and comments. I seriously value what you have to say. This is very valuable experience on your part.

Dont think you will be disappointed with the Croft amps Shaun. I had Firebottle here a month ago and he was very very impressed what my Croft 7 could do compared to his OTL and amps. So mono,s will certainly deliver. As for the 25R I have one and it is absolutely superb. If you do get one or have yours uprgraded ask Glenn to build you one with the RS Linestage, it makes quite a bit of difference as do the valves - I use NOS 70;s Tesla 32,s - fantastic.

Pity your not closer Shaun as you could have a demo at mine!

[Dane]

...Valve monoblocks are seriously expensive Here in Denmark there are are few valve amplifier builders who do it well and have many satisfied customers. And I don't find them that expensive, given the prices are including our outrages 25 % tax, so you would have to do the math with your own taxes to compare the price to a similar product in the UK.This set is 1475 £ http://thorhauge-audio.dk/power-amplifiers/thorhauge-m-50/?lang=en I have heard his integrated http://thorhauge-audio.dk/integrated-3/i-270/?lang=en a couple of times at audio fair and they do have that typical valve sound most like: Warm and rhythmic. God amount of detail but not the last say in tiny details, good bass but not rock solid. But that's not a bad thing, because it gives a coherent musical experience that I have heard from others is real pleasant to listen too in the long term ( no listening fatigue). I owned Audio Classic back then http://www.audio-classic.dk/ His prices is about 1300 £ for a pair of kt 120 monoblocks http://www.audio-classic.dk/index.php/forstaerker.html. The Audio Classic 12 watt SE I had, were somewhat closer to SS in terms of control and detail, but still not as detailed as my Audiolab SS and off cause not as powerful given the few watts, and I guess it where SS and valves differ, you have to pay a lot more to get the small details in music with valves than SS. I have heard valves on audio fairs that squeezes every last detail out of a recording, but they also cost an arm and a leg :stalks:

[andrasszamek]

can you audition stuff in your home? i feel the audiolab might be too sterile with the KEF. how about Odyssey? dont these spekeers like more power rather then less?

[Audio Advent]

What does "sterile" mean? "Dirty" normally implies loads of distortion... so sterile must be the opposite, a very "clean" sound, no "smearing" either if it's clean.

I'm joking a little but I really don't know what sterile means and how it is meant as a negative. You don't want anything to be coloured!

I'm guessing that a bland amplifier is one which could be described as sterile due to it's lack of any excitement, but I'd put that down to poor design, poor stereo separation and poor detail retreval (possibly a hidden distortion somewhere). I wouldn't like to suggest Audiolab make such poor amps :scratch:

[walpurgis]

I'd suggest that in a Hi-Fi context, 'sterile' means lacking in anything that brings the music to life. As such.

Terms like 'dull', 'bland', 'grey sounding' and 'sterile' amongst others are common to describe this. As I'm sure we have all heard.

[Eisener Bart]

sterile = emasculated.

[Marco]

Also clinical. And if something sounds sterile or clinical, it's not natural sounding (or transparent), and therefore coloured.

Marco.

[Macca]

Unless the recording itself is sterile...

[Marco]

Indeed, although short of having the original masters, or having been in the studio when the recording took place, you'll never know whether said recording inherently sounds 'sterile', or if it is simply an effect superimposed onto the recording, as a result of an artifice of your system :)

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

Clinical makes me think of something very detailed and very quick reacting - able to respond to the fastest and most delicate of signals.

Clincal precision.

Sterile = uninfected by colouration

Clinical = as precise as a scalpel blade

See how confusing these terms are.. I never understand what people are talking about.

[Audio Advent]

I'd suggest that in a Hi-Fi context, 'sterile' means lacking in anything that brings the music to life. As such.

Terms like 'dull', 'bland', 'grey sounding' and 'sterile' amongst others are common to describe this. As I'm sure we have all heard.

For me that description equates mostly to stereo image and airy-ness. A cheap CD player (sterile and lifeless) versus a cheap record player (still manages air and stereo depth and width and general energy). Had a rotel integrated which sounded like that too (but it could have needed a service?).

[Marco]

Clinical makes me think of something very detailed and very quick reacting - able to respond to the fastest and most delicate of signals.

Clincal precision.


That works with 'precision' added at the end, when applied to, say, how a piece of equipment is designed to operate in a technical sense. However, would you like your favourite piece of music to sound 'clinical', if it wasn't meant to sound like that, and indeed only did so because the 'sonic signature' of the equipment used caused that effect?

The equipment responsible, therefore, would effectively be acting as an expensive tone control device..... I understand 'clinical', in that sense, as meaning 'squeaky clean' - and not all music is designed to sound that way.

More importantly, I consider the word 'clinical', used in the context of how recorded music is presented by a hi-fi system, as meaning 'dispassionate'. And if that's how your system portrays music, you've got a big problem, as I don't know of many musicians or recording artists who deliberately create 'dispassionate' musical performances! ;)

My preference is for a sound that's 'lifelike' [lifelike, for me, is a much better word than clinical], i.e. for music to sound as it was originally intended by the artist and/or recording engineer (therefore, to essentially capture, as far as possible, the sound that left the studio). In that respect, if it sounded 'clinical', that's how I want to hear it, but if it didn't, and instead was the opposite, then of course *that* is what I would want to hear.

Quite simply I don't want the equipment I use significantly 'editing' the recordings that I listen to! :)


Sterile = uninfected by colouration


Perhaps by your interpretation. Mine would be 'soulless'/'insipid', or devoid of 'life' and natural 'colour' (not coloration, which is a different thing entirely), rendering music reproduced in that way as uninteresting to listen to. In that respect, I often use the word 'monochromatic' to convey a similar meaning, thus:

Are you listening to your favourite music in rather sterile 'monochrome', as opposed to glorious 'Technicolour', full of richness, warmth, vibrancy and 'life'? It's not a perfect analogy, by any means, but I trust you can see what I mean?

Therefore, for me, whenever I see the word 'sterile' used, in relation to the sound of recorded music, as reproduced by hi-fi equipment, I think 'soulless' and 'monochromatic', unless the music in question was intended to sound that way in the first place.

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

I'm really talking about the use of words - in another context they can mean something different. So comparing to their every day useage they don't make sense. It's as if audiophiles have taken words and re-appropriated them so that they only mean what you describe in this specific err... clique.

Sterile means that something is pure in everyday language, free from infection. Therefore one might get the impression than sterile in music is pure and uninfected by unwanted artifacts. In a clinical environment, people try to keep things clean and uncontaminated like a high-tech NASA lab.

I think I'd want my electronics designed by NASA because they'd make it supremely fast and responsive to the most delicate of signals because that's what they have to deal with in their work. That would mean all the micro-details of the music would come through and the micro details are all the little emotional inflections of a musician and all the rich details of timbre, all the rich details which describe the room reverberations etc. And NASA technicians are human too and probably have great love of music like other humans so can't say they'd not be coming from the same place as you or I.

NASA would come up with something like the holographic floor on Startrek Next Generation, so supremely lifelike so that you believe it is actually real rather than just lifelike.


What you are describing is how you personally might feel inside the clinical NASA lab, that it's uncomfortable, un-human, you can't relax, it's very bright (so people can work), it's soul-less (because a lab is functional and goal oriented, best use of money) etc etc etc. So I guess that's where the description comes from, nothing to do with the actual goings on and aims of a sterile, clinical place.

Different way of thinking about words and what they are trying to represent.

[Macca]

I'm really talking about the use of words - in another context they can mean something different. So comparing to their every day useage they don't make sense. It's as if audiophiles have taken words and re-appropriated them so that they only mean what you describe in this specific err... clique.

.

Welcome to the English language where words usually have more than one use or meaning. It isn't just in hi-fi that this happens. Consider the use of 'vibrant' in marketing guff, for example. Personally I'm sick of seeing it.

I don't mean physically sick...but sick as in bored. I could have just used bored but I didn't.

I recall a few mags way back used to have a glossary of hi-fi terms, reprinted every month 'cause that's a page filled for no extra effort. I'd suggest both clinical and sterile are negative terms when talking about sound reproduction, but this is really a topic for a thread of its own.

[Audio Advent]

A Vibrant Guff may well leave you feeling physically sick..

[Macca]

As sick as a parrot.

[Audio Advent]

Here's an opinion on some Croft 5s I just happened across (a few links skiping from an advert on DIY Audio - the "Stochinos" are a DIY solid state amp) :


One of the most impressive strengths of the Croft 5 valve amplifiers that I was using until a year or so ago was their transparency. My favourite test for this is to play one of the free cover CDs from Gramophone Magazine, which contain a wide range of recordings dating from (mostly) high-quality modern recordings back to the 1930s, and with the Crofts I could clearly hear the change in acoustic and instrument placement from track to track. I find that this is a subtle but crucial test of amplifiers, as many fail it, and in most cases it seems to be the fault of the amplifier at least as much as that of the source or loudspeakers. I've never been impressed by the performance of any of the solid-state amps I've owned in this respect, and even the Stochinos don't quite manage this trick as well as the Crofts, although they do the job better than most. Another aspect of transparency is the ability to differentiate different instruments. For instance, different makes of piano sound very different in real life, but this isn't obvious through most hi-fi systems. A second example is the timbre of a viola, which is very different from a violin when heard "live". This is something that valve amplifiers again are typically very good at, and I'm very pleased with the way the Stochinos do it, even through the relatively modest ProAcs.

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/~apm3/diyaudio/Stochino_progress.html

Then there's pride of ownership the Croft 7 Monos will have compared to the black boxes of the Audiolabs.

[Marco]

I know where you're coming from, Sam, and appreciate it, but I stand by what I wrote in my last post.


I'm really talking about the use of words - in another context they can mean something different. So comparing to their every day useage they don't make sense. It's as if audiophiles have taken words and re-appropriated them so that they only mean what you describe in this specific err... clique.


Yes to the first bit, and yes to the bit in bold too, *sometimes*.

However, an 'artistic' or descriptive use of language can be necessary in order to portray what you are hearing with hi-fi equipment and ancillaries: essentially 'painting a picture with words', so that others can grasp what you're describing and attempt to relate to it. Done well, it is actually a useful skill, especially when posting on forums such as this, if you want to get your message across properly.

For instance, think about how the areas of AoS have been named, in terms of creating an artistic reference to hi-fi or music, such as for example, 'Analogue Art'. It doesn't really mean anything in a normal context, but here it conveys the message (or at least it should do) of how to create 'art with sound', in this case via the use of analogue source components - and that descriptive process is similar to what we're talking about here.

Such practice is fine, as long as the language used to describe what we subjectively hear doesn't become too 'flowery', and thus largely meaningless. Hi-fi journalists are often guilty of the latter!

And most 'audiophiles' would understand my meaning of 'clinical' or 'sterile' in the context in which I described it in my last post. In my case, therefore, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'cliques'! :nono:

The problem is, you think too much in binary, 'black or white' terms, and appear to miss all the subtle (but very important) 'shades' in between! ;)

Out of curiosity, what is it that you do for a living? I'm guessing it's something science or engineering related...

Marco.

[mikmas]

And most 'audiophiles' would understand my meaning of 'clinical' or 'sterile' in the context in which I described it in my last post. In my case, therefore, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with 'cliques'! :nono:

The problem is, you think too much in binary, 'black or white' terms, and appear to miss all the subtle (but very important) 'shades' in between! ;)

Marco.

Coming from an Arts & Humanities background, I completely agree and would add that these terms are very commonplace in negative criticisms of painting, drama, photography, film, etc. To describe a work as 'sterile' or 'clinical' is saying that it lacks spirit and emotion and is incapable of stirring an emotional response (which is what most people expect from 'Art').

Of course context is everything and (as you pointed out) it may be that the artist's whole point is to deny any emotional or cathartic involvement by the audience and instead is prompting an analytical and intellectual understanding - think Damian Hirst for instance who amassed a vast fortune through work typified by a, sometimes literal, clinical and sterile approach. Criticising his work on this basis would be totally missing the point .....

[Audio Advent]

The problem is, you think too much in binary, 'black or white' terms, and appear to miss all the subtle (but very important) 'shades' in between! ;)



I was saying the complete opposite - that the terms used are not black and white unless you've kind of already been briefed as to their black and white meaning by exposure to their use and repetition in specific contexts. Spending enough time in those places so that you "learn" the definitions from the group is what I meant by clique - I couldn't think of the right word for a group of people who have formed a specific culture and language.

I was giving other view points of the general images and vibes the terms conjure up in my head, observing how their meaning is rather grey and therefore open to wide interpretation, such that they cause confusion when they are used in a place like this, open to everyone including those not used to the terms.

I'm a "chippy" I guess, putting up corporate events and sometimes art installations, sometimes making stuff - hands on work.

[Audio Advent]

Anyway - hopefully my quote of someone's thoughts on the Croft amps haven't been diluted by thread-drift.

The transparency they talk of is what I've heard from valve amps (though never owned one) although not exclusive to valve amps. And is the kind of sound I'd go for for electronica.

[Marco]

I was giving other view points of the general images and vibes the terms conjure up in my head, observing how their meaning is rather grey and therefore open to wide interpretation, such that they cause confusion when they are used in a place like this, open to everyone including those not used to the terms.


Anyone who posts on a hi-fi forum and enjoys hi-fi should automatically understand, and be able to relate to, my earlier definition of 'clinical' or 'sterile', in relation to how some equipment presents recorded music, so there should be no confusion.

It was the fact that you didn't seem able to do that, and instead could only relate to their dictionary definition (or one specific definition you had in your head), that prompted my response about your 'black or white' thinking. If that's untrue, then I stand corrected.


I'm a "chippy" I guess, putting up corporate events and sometimes art installations, sometimes making stuff - hands on work.

Thanks for that. Interesting... Not what I expected at all! :)

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

Of course on a very different level there is the sad fact that we are also comparing items made in China to bespoke items made in a rear garden workshop in England. As I understand things, Audiolab are part of the IAG and therefore Chinese...?

There is also the fact that during 2009 I owned a Croft Micro 25 Basic and a Series 7 poweramp but sadly had to sell them all due to circumstances. I was completely blown away by their level of detail. Of course back then I wasn't using KEF loudspeakers with their Uni-Q drivers so stereo wasn't as obvious as it is now and so this factor has now become a major one in deciding which poweramp to buy. I am tempted by Croft Series 7 monoblocks mainly for their detail retrieval and enhanced stereo image.

[Macca]

Shaun re stereo image I don't know if you have read this thread on PFM but there is some well-written analysis of what contributes to stereo image in it.

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=178762

[Haselsh1]

Yes Martin, back in around 1990 I had a Musical Fidelity A100X, an integrated class A amplifier into Rogers LS3/5a loudspeakers and the stereo was massive especially on Roger Water's album 'Amused to Death' with its Q Sound processing. I guess it kind of follows that an integrated amplifier can therefore produce just as massive a stereo effect as monoblocks do. My current Rotel bridged monoblocks have been tried by me as stereo poweramps and the imaging is dreadful in comparison to using them as monoblocks. Going on from this, I guess that a really well designed and built stereo poweramp should produce just as massive an effect as monoblocks...? Glen Croft though has assured me that Series 7 monoblocks are superior to a single Series 7 stereo. My logic suggests that this has to be true. A single Series 7 stereo is sharing one power supply whereas monoblocks have an independent supply per channel. Against this though is the fact that my current Rotel's are genuine dual mono in that each poweramp has a separate power supply for each channel, both of which are twinned up when using them bridged.

Moving into the future, I am currently thinking along the lines of Croft Micro 25 R preamp with Croft Series 7 monoblocks but if anyone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

[Haselsh1]

Another point I'd like to mention if I may is that even older 1970's recordings produce a stunning stereo image especially the first Dire Straits album on CD. I am not just talking about very modern electronic albums here like the Younger Brother albums. Also, in my system, CD produces a much more dominant stereo effect than does vinyl. The vinyl is making an attempt but CD just belts out its highly obvious stereo.

[Jimbo]

Another point I'd like to mention if I may is that even older 1970's recordings produce a stunning stereo image especially the first Dire Straits album on CD. I am not just talking about very modern electronic albums here like the Younger Brother albums. Also, in my system, CD produces a much more dominant stereo effect than does vinyl. The vinyl is making an attempt but CD just belts out its highly obvious stereo.


Shaun, you should hear what the 2M black with my Croft 25R can do with stereo - Agnes sounds mindblowing!:)

[Macca]

Another point I'd like to mention if I may is that even older 1970's recordings produce a stunning stereo image especially the first Dire Straits album on CD. I am not just talking about very modern electronic albums here like the Younger Brother albums. Also, in my system, CD produces a much more dominant stereo effect than does vinyl. The vinyl is making an attempt but CD just belts out its highly obvious stereo.

I find the same but I could narrow the gap if I chucked more money at my vinyl set up. CD does have much more channel separation and stereo in the bass, too!

[Marco]

CD does have much more channel separation and stereo in the bass, too!

<Cough> Not to my ears, in my system, it doesn't (given a recording on vinyl that shows what the format is truly capable of)! :nono:

Like you say, you need to narrow the gap in the performance capability of your sources. Unfortunately, you're never going to hear what vinyl can *really* do with a sub-£3k T/T. I'm afraid, muchachos, that's just the reality!

Marco.

[Audio Advent]

It was the fact that you didn't seem able to do that, and instead could only relate to their dictionary definition (or one specific definition you had in your head), that prompted my response about your 'black or white' thinking. If that's untrue, then I stand corrected.



I was presenting another side. I even said "I'm joking.. .sort of" - or whatever I actually wrote.

I "understand" what people are trying to say ... but the words make no real sense to me, they don't ring true and even clash with my view of the world and use of English to describe it, coming from a place thinking for myself. They only make sense if you've learned those phrases from them being used again and again in a particular context to mean a particular thing. But step back from that programming and again they make .. well not that much sense (a little bit perhaps if you see it from one perspective) in reflection.

Much the same that advertising speak (as Macca mentioned) or office lingo makes no sense.


Anyone who posts on a hi-fi forum and enjoys hi-fi should automatically understand, and be able to relate to, my earlier definition of 'clinical' or 'sterile', in relation to how some equipment presents recorded music, so there should be no confusion.

That sounds scarily like a cult and group-think! You're scaring me... :) I'd like to keep my sanity !

[Audio Advent]

CD does have much more channel separation and stereo in the bass, too!

Vinyl is deliberately mastered NOT to have stereo in the bass - so not only are you correct there, it's a truism. At what frequencies the bass is deliberately mono'd I don't know.

[Audio Advent]

There is also the fact that during 2009 I owned a Croft Micro 25 Basic and a Series 7 poweramp but sadly had to sell them all due to circumstances. I was completely blown away by their level of detail. Of course back then I wasn't using KEF loudspeakers with their Uni-Q drivers so stereo wasn't as obvious as it is now and so this factor has now become a major one in deciding which poweramp to buy. I am tempted by Croft Series 7 monoblocks mainly for their detail retrieval and enhanced stereo image.

Well, I think your mind is made up - thread closed.

Pre-amps though - I like pre-amps. There is so much difference in design and ergonomics that it would be a shame to restrict your choice to Croft again. There are some great solid state pre-amps too and personally I don't think an all valve set up will automatically be more magical than a mix.

[Haselsh1]

I find the same but I could narrow the gap if I chucked more money at my vinyl set up. CD does have much more channel separation and stereo in the bass, too!

Yes Martin, stereo in the bass is mixed out at the engineering stage because a cartridge cannot track it whereas there are no such restrictions with CD. I also agree with throwing money at a vinyl setup, I don't doubt it would get better but I doubt it would better a £1k CD player. And, why try to compare a £3k+ vinyl setup to a £1k CD player, it makes no sense.

[Haselsh1]

Well, I think your mind is made up - thread closed.

Pre-amps though - I like pre-amps. There is so much difference in design and ergonomics that it would be a shame to restrict your choice to Croft again. There are some great solid state pre-amps too and personally I don't think an all valve set up will automatically be more magical than a mix.

I am not going for an all valve setup, I am going the hybrid route.

[Macca]

Vinyl is deliberately mastered NOT to have stereo in the bass - so not only are you correct there, it's a truism. At what frequencies the bass is deliberately mono'd I don't know.

It is mastered that way because otherwise you would not get much playing time and the stylus would have trouble tracking it. It depends on the individual mastering but my understanding is that most vinyl Lps have mono bass below 100 Hz.

[Marco]

Is it something that concerns you though, or that you're sitting there analysing, when listening to your records? Me thinks some folk worry too much...

I have to say that sort of shit is the last thing on my mind, especially when feeling the huge dollops of sledgehammer bass (mono or otherwise) in my ribcage, when the Techy is pumping out 12" dance singles!! ;)

Marco.

[struth]

Dont like a lot of bass. It colours the music imo:sofa:

[Marco]

Nah, realistic tight and tuneful bass (i.e. what's meant to be there in the first place) doesn't. Realistic bass and scale is also unavoidable when you've got 15" drive units in 200+ litre cabinets!! :D :gig:

Marco.

[Macca]

Is it something that concerns you though, or that you're sitting there analysing, when listening to your records? Me thinks some folk worry too much...

I have to say that sort of shit is the last thing on my mind, especially when feeling the huge dollops of sledgehammer bass (mono or otherwise) in my ribcage, when the Techy is pumping out 12" dance singles!! ;)

Marco.

No, not at all and my Techy sounds great with dancey stuff, as you'd expect.

But we were disusing stereo image so it was relevant. Interestingly it is one of vinyl's many technical failings that actually makes it sound good from a psyco-acoustic point of view.

[Marco]

But we were disusing stereo image so it was relevant. Interestingly it is one of vinyl's many technical failings that actually makes it sound good from a psyco-acoustic point of view.

The thing is, if these so-called "technical failings" on paper don't translate into what one hears in the real world, then they are of no real relevance: a veritable non-issue. As you know, we've been here with this before.

Whilst I accept that vinyl replay isn't perfect (and neither is CD, or anything else for that matter), I don't hear the width, depth or height of the stereo image, or level of channel separation, lacking in any way whatsoever with vinyl, when playing identical recordings on both vinyl and CD, or with computer audio.

To my ears, the Techy (with the right recordings) does all of the above just as well as my Sony CDP. Therefore, as I've said before, you'll have to point out to me and explain what these "technical failings" are (including mono bass) next time you're round, so I can appreciate what their effect is in the same way you do :)

Marco.

[Macca]

Well, and in my opinion CD is as technically perfect as you need for domestic replay.

Compared to CD and on a technical basis the 33.3 microgroove LP is a Sopwith Camel versues a Boeing 777

That this technical prowess does not seem to extend to listening comparisons is a mystery to some. But consider - as you yourself said yesterday 'you need to spend north of £3K on your turntable to hear what vinyl is truly capable of' - wheras with digital just fifty quid will do, providing your happy to slum it second hand.

In addition vinyl is also in the happy position that its technical failings can actually improve the listening experience: mono bass can sound more solid and defined, arm resonance adds a bit of welcome sparkle, the chogs of second harmonic add tone and textural richness, airborne vibrations create feedback that adds a little bit of pleasing reverb, and so on.

All this may actually enhance the original recording rather than detract from it. This can result in vinyl sounding subjectively 'better', in the same way that flying in the Sopwith camel will undoubtably be a more exhilirating experience than flying in the 777.

But it is not objectively 'better' or more accurate to the source recording and no amount of wishful/ Luddite thinking will make it so. Reel to Reel 15ips is better than vinyl in that respect, too.

[Marco]

Compared to CD and on a technical basis the 33.3 microgroove LP is a Sopwith Camel versues a Boeing 777


Yes, but who cares? We're music lovers here, not research scientists working in a laboratory testing equipment for technical superiority. Therefore, if said technical superiority doesn't translate into sonic superiority, in terms of that which makes our favourite music sound best/most lifelike, to our ears, then said technical superiority is irrelevant.


That this technical prowess does not seem to extend to listening comparisons is a mystery to some.


It's certainly a mystery to me, as despite owning an expensive system, full of highly capable music sources, both digital and analogue, I fail to hear the claimed technical superiority of CD over vinyl, when both are showcasing their full potential, which leads me to suspect that said technical superiority is only obvious to those who haven't heard vinyl at its best, or where in their system there is a gross disparity between the sonic prowess of their turntable and CD player.

That is simply not the case in my set up, where both my T/T and CDP sound equally as good, using any sonic parameters you care to mention.


But consider - as you yourself said yesterday 'you need to spend north of £3K on your turntable to hear what vinyl is truly capable of' - wheras with digital just fifty quid will do, providing your happy to slum it second hand.


Sorry, but you're kidding yourself on if you think that a £50 CDP (unless, rather miraculously, you can find a genuinely high-end, properly designed one for that price second-hand), will be able to showcase the full potential of CD, as it will likely have a cheap, plastic, DVD ROM mechanism and nasty switch-mode PSU, all of which anyone with discerning ears could hear the detrimental effects of, and wouldn't tolerate, no matter how good the on-board DAC was.

Experience tells me that it takes a lot of money to hear the full potential that CD is capable of, and that primarily involves the use of a transport mechanism able to extract the musical information encoded onto the disc as accurately as possible, with minimal error - and such things are costly and difficult to design.

If you want genuinely cheap, superb sounding digital music replay, then buy a Raspberry Pi! Streaming is where it's at if you want maximum bang for your buck, in the digital arena, not a CD player.


In addition vinyl is also in the happy position that its technical failings can actually improve the listening experience: mono bass can sound more solid and defined, arm resonance adds a bit of welcome sparkle, the chogs of second harmonic add tone and textural richness, airborne vibrations create feedback that adds a little bit of pleasing reverb, and so on.


Again, I can hear none of the above effects with vinyl in my set-up, in comparison with what I enjoy digitally, so you will have to identify them for me next time you're here.


All this may actually enhance the original recording rather than detract from it. This can result in vinyl sounding subjectively 'better', in the same way that flying in the Sopwith camel will undoubtably be a more exhilirating experience than flying in the 777.


Well, the listening experience anyone has with hi-fi equipment can only ever be relevant in a subjective sense, because we're using our ears to judge what we hear, not test apparatus. My benchmark for 'musical accuracy' is what sounds REAL or LIFELIKE, to my ears, based on my experience of listening to live, acoustic instruments, not on what is said to represent 'accuracy' in some technical manual.


But it is not objectively 'better' or more accurate to the source recording and no amount of wishful/ Luddite thinking will make it so. Reel to Reel 15ips is better than vinyl in that respect, too.

Providing that it is optimised and set-up properly, yes, but that so often is not the case, as it takes a lot of experience and know-how to get the most from a reel-to-reel tape machine. I couldn't give a monkey's toss what is considered as 'objectively better', as that doesn't always match with what my ears tell me is 'right', in terms of a saxophone sounding like a saxophone or a piano sounding like a piano.

And that's not a luddite talking, but a music lover and someone who intrinsically *knows*, through experience, how stuff is supposed to sound in the real world, not an artificially created paper-based one, as dictated by an oscilloscope! ;)

Marco.

[walpurgis]

with digital just fifty quid will do, providing your happy to slum it second hand.

Now then. No fifty quid's worth of used CD player will really meet the expectations of my ears. My main CD setup would have cost over £2500 at its new prices.

[struth]

Now then. No fifty quid's worth of used CD player will really meet the expectations of my ears. My main CD setup would have cost over £2500 at its new prices.

Not sure what a monarchy dac and dip cost new in the day, but I'd guess a fair amount. my dv717 was £550 and the MF 10v3 buffer was £300 so I'm not too far behind you Geoff. plus cables:eek: I'm rich; all I have to do is time travel backwards;)

[Marco]

Not sure what a monarchy dac and dip cost new in the day, but I'd guess a fair amount.

Are there any available for £50? ;)

Marco.

[Macca]

Player I am listening to now was fifty notes. It doesn't give away much to the Technis slp1200 which is one of the best I have heard. It was about 300 new I think. It outclsses my vinyl set up which would cost 1500 new.

The important point is that for years we were told that the reason cd didn't match our vinyl set ups was because it is technically inferior. That was a crock and I object to being misled in that way. In fact it is the other way around.

We prefer what we prefer and we don't get to choose in the same way we don't get to choose if we like bkack pudding. I've no objection to folk preferring vinyl just folk claiming they prefer it because it is technically superior because it is a fact that it isn't.

[struth]

Are there any available for £50? ;)

Marco.

maybe a scrap one that been run over with a Brabus; elsewise I doubt it .;).....closer to a grand I'd think new, and £300 second hand

[Jimbo]

Vinyl is not technically superior to any digital format but to my ears it definitely sounds superior to any digital format..

All that wonderful colouration from the analogue front end fired through harmonically distorted valves sounds so much more real and musical.:lol:

I agree with you Marco, streaming done on the cheap sounds so much better than CD almost at any price.

[Marco]

Player I am listening to now was fifty notes. It doesn't give away much to the Technis slp1200 which is one of the best I have heard. It was about 300 new I think. It outclsses my vinyl set up which would cost 1500 new.


Then you were lucky, Martin, as such things don't exactly grow on trees. And what happens if something goes tits up with your current player (fingers crossed it doesn't), like it did with the the Technics? It joins your growing graveyard of 'fatally injured' equipment? :eyebrows:

Binning kit like that is hardly cost-effective, which is the problem with digital equipment that contains critical moving parts. That's why streaming makes much more sense for the SPPV-conscious digital fanboy! ;)


The important point is that for years we were told that the reason cd didn't match our vinyl set ups was because it is technically inferior. That was a crock and I object to being misled in that way. In fact it is the other way around.


That's an interesting insight... It may explain why you appear to have such a bee in your bonnet about 'proving' the opposite.

Personally, I can't remember what you're inferring as happening. It was more the other way round. As I remember it, the resistance to CD from vinyl diehards, back in the day, was more because they thought it sounded crap in comparison with their turntables, than any claimed technical inferiority.


We prefer what we prefer and we don't get to choose in the same way we don't get to choose if we like bkack pudding. I've no objection to folk preferring vinyl just folk claiming they prefer it because it is technically superior because it is a fact that it isn't.

Absolutely, but they don't prefer it because they think it's technically superior; merely because they consider it sounds, to their ears, more musical :)

Marco.

[Haselsh1]

Ultimately, my outlook has been coloured by my current Rotel power amps because as stereo amps they image so badly I now think that nothing will do other than monoblocks. This of course has to be wrong because my Musical Fidelity A100X imaged superbly.

Also, I couldn't really care less whether I have stereo bass or not because for me I value the stereo effect much more highly. I currently have sounds appearing right next to my lugholes, in the chimney and outside in the hallway. Now that is either very good stereo imaging or this bloody old Victorian house is a tad weird

Currently my main reason for looking into changing my amplifiers is that the Rotel's are now very old and I simply don't trust them anymore. I already have a Croft Micro 25 Basic and its purchase was a massive upgrade over the Rotel pre that came with the powers. OK so the powers are a tad soft and loose in the bass but the Series 7's certainly won't be.

[Haselsh1]

By the way, the thread meanderings here I find fantastic ;)

[Marco]

It's a big part of the AoS tradition - enjoy! :D

Marco.

[mikmas]

A 50 quid CDP versus a 50 quid combined TT and phono stage.... both fed to the same amp/speaker set up

Now THAT would make an interesting bake off :lol:

[hifi_dave]

Does depend on what you are comparing for £50..:scratch:

For instance, one of my customers bought a Garrard 401/SME 3009/V15 II for £40 at a car boot sale. He beat the seller down from £60 - mean bugger.

[mikmas]

Does depend on what you are comparing for £50..:scratch:

For instance, one of my customers bought a Garrard 401/SME 3009/V15 II for £40 at a car boot sale. He beat the seller down from £60 - mean bugger.

True - but a find like that is hardly a common place event or remotely representative of your average car boot fodder ... although we all live in hope of that 50p brooch actually being a Faberge ;)

[hifi_dave]

100% with you on that. I've been to many boot sales and loads of charity shops and never found anything Hi-Fi, records or CDS I would take as a gift, let alone buy. Maybe I'm just unlucky because others seem to find goodies.

[Haselsh1]

A 50 quid CDP versus a 50 quid combined TT and phono stage.... both fed to the same amp/speaker set up

Now THAT would make an interesting bake off :lol:

You're obviously referring to a very famous DJ deck with a NAD phono stage

;)

[Audio Advent]

I am not going for an all valve setup, I am going the hybrid route.

Ah sorry - even though I remember now it was mentioned it was a hybrid, the talk on this thread was making me think that the Croft 7 had a valve output stage. I think others in the thread have been mistaken too, all this talk of whether valves are good for electronica or not.

I didn't realise Croft no longer makes an all valve power amp - great to see someone chasing the sound rather than an ideology or niche. Valve voltage amp or driver stage into Class-D output stage could be the next trick. Wish I could isolate those parts easily on the Hypex Ncore board.

[Audio Advent]

I have to say that sort of shit is the last thing on my mind, especially when feeling the huge dollops of sledgehammer bass (mono or otherwise) in my ribcage, when the Techy is pumping out 12" dance singles!! ;)

Marco.

I worry about those details - which is why I pay 5 shaolin monks to break paving stones with a sledgehammer on my chest, in time with the beat. I have a trade account with Travis Perkins too..

[Macca]

- which is why I pay 5 shaolin monks to break paving stones with a sledgehammer on my chest, in time with the beat. ..

You only need 1 Shaolin monk with vinyl, since the bass is in mono.... ;)

[OD1]

I get the same effect placing my Rel Subwoofer on my chest while playing anything by Robbie Shakespeare.
:lol:

[Marco]

I worry about those details - which is why I pay 5 shaolin monks to break paving stones with a sledgehammer on my chest, in time with the beat. I have a trade account with Travis Perkins too..

:lolsign:

Marco.