View Full Version : What's the best system you've heard?
James the Albarry lover
29-11-2017, 03:06
Being relatively new to hifi I haven't heard alot that's out there and mostly go by the opinions of others on what to buy such as reviewers and hifi veterans such as yourselfs and so I'm curious what is the best systems you've heard?
For me the best I heard was a friend's, Marantz sa11s2, Abrahamsen v2 up integrated amplifier and Sonus Faber olympica iiis which are easily one of the most beautiful looking speakers out there. The sound that these bits of kit produce is incredibly detailed and exciting no bad recordings allowed or you'll cringe at ever little flaw. The Abrahamsen is made by a hifi legend Per Abrahamsen a founder and lead designer from Electrocompaniet up until they went bankrupt in 2004 and were sold to another company he started his own company and everyone from the original Electrocompaniet followed, it's a cracking amp that's powers the big Faber's with ease. The Faber's while being big are incredibly picky about postioning and aren't fun to move at 91kgs. The Marantz really opened my eyes to ability of super audio CDs you hear these new layers of instruments and subtle details you never knew where there before. Well I guess I should shut up now and suppress this raging hifi boner I've got going :whippin:
Beobloke
29-11-2017, 12:47
It was the Munich High End Show 2012 and, if I remember correctly, the CD player and preamp were Krell, but the speakers were the ADAM Audio OSS.
I actually flew home slightly depressed as I had never heard anything so truly stunning in my life and was afraid I never would again. Five years later, I still haven't... :(
James the Albarry lover
29-11-2017, 12:56
Yes that's the exact same way I felt when I went back to my own system
The best system I've heard is my own, but I'm sure if I went to some 'ultra-fi' show listening to six figures systems I could well come home feeling disappointed, so I'll stay ignorant & enjoy the tunes instead. :P
HiFi is a very personal thing though, rooms change a lot of things too, so I expect a lot of people in here will also think it's their own systems that sound best to them.
The best system I ever heard was at Slawa's place (SW1X). A fully valved system, using mostly his kit, feeding field coil open baffle speakers. Despite already having a pretty good system comprising 6ft horn speakers and top of the range amplification by EAR I had become jaded by the lack of progress in sound quality by modern kit, typified by the harsh digital mess displayed by most manufacturers at high end shows.
I get re-acquainted with that system whenever I visit Slawas and the bits of kit I have bought from him nudge me closer to that end product. Its taken me about 50 years to go back to technology that is often 50 years old - work that out.
paulf-2007
29-11-2017, 13:16
That's a tough one and I would have to say it depends where I heard it. Jim ( Jvs ) formerly of the wam, Wilson watt puppies at Scalford in a big room cranked up, were fantastic, not quite as good in his own room. Ritchies 5 way horns in his room were as good in a different way, but my own in my treated room is the best and the reason I haven't seen anything I would replace in ages.
I look at this slightly different, many years ago I went to a classical music recital held in Lincoln cathedral, I can't remember what was played, but the sound was so sweet, especially the high end notes of someone playing a "Triangle".
I cannot replicate Lincoln cathedral in my flat, I came close in my last house, the room was large with the perfect shape and layout for "Hi-Fi", I would say (And a few others on here agree) that your room, layout and furnishings play such a major part in how you hear music.
This would make comparisons between equipment in different room layouts very difficult to say the least.
But when you get the right gear in the right place you will know you have it right.
Don't get too hung up on the gear side of it unless you also get the setting right.
EDIT: Sorry Paul didn't see your post.
jandl100
29-11-2017, 15:06
Best system for what?
The best I have heard for low level detail was at a Show with hOrnes Universum speakers. They really did make me look a bit askance at my lovely MBLs.
-- but then crank it up a bit and my system handles it better.
Best imaging I have heard was a friend's pair of Harbeth P3ESR speakers and I can't recall the rest of the system. I mean, really 3D. Jaw drop for me.
My system is good at imaging, but not that good!
But ... dynamics, power delivery, resolution; no, my system does it better for me.
The most natural tonality I have heard from a system was with a pair or refurbed Quad II amps - wowzer! Gorgeous. But dynamically it was like watching paint dry. :zzz:
I haven't heard anything that is overall better than what I hear at home - but then I have chosen my system to match my own tastes, so it's hardly surprising that I like it. :)
I am however grateful that I haven't been to Munich and heard those Krell-driven Adams!! :eyebrows:
I rarely visit audio shows, but when I do, and on the rare occasion when I hear a good system, it might at the time make me feel dissatisfied with my own, that feeling dissappears as soon as I return home and listen to my system. It's far from perfect but I'm quite satisfied and content with its performance and don't envisage making any major changes in the future.
Likewise I have heard other systems, can appreciate their strengths, forgive their weaknesses, but never come away feeling dissapointed with my own set up.
Primalsea
29-11-2017, 15:14
For me it was at a show where one of the smaller rooms had a Primare music server and amp going to some Revel Concerta 2 standmount speakers. Just stunning... but I have also heard some real expensive stuff sound terrible. I don’t think it was the gear per se, it was the gear and the room just didn't mesh well.
wee tee cee
29-11-2017, 15:22
I travelled down to Colin Topps place to buy his 57s off him.
He insisted on letting me hear them to make sure I was happy-love them to bits.
Colin made us a brew and buttie and asked if we had 5 minutes to listen to his new eddingdale speakers.
Oh dear....played some tracy chapman on vinyl.
His speakers, I think LDA 30OB mono blocks, bespoke phono stage and pre cant remotely remember what turntable it was.
I was flabbergasted.....best noise ive ever heard from a hi fi.
It has niggled away at me for ages....Colin is in the process of building me a pair of his speakers configured for solid state.
Lifes way too short, I love music so does my son and good lady.
Colin Wonfor has provided me with two lovely amps to marry up to them....chase the dream if you can.
anthonyTD
29-11-2017, 15:48
Mine ;)
Seriously though as other have said, its a very personal thing, and I have heard systems from both ends of the scale that blew me a way, for diffrent reasons, likewise' I have heard seriously underwhelming ones from both ends too!:eek:
walpurgis
29-11-2017, 15:51
I've heard supposedly superb systems at shows and in dealers and also heard very decent systems at other folks homes. But I still breathe a sigh of relief when I put mine on and listen to some music (after a warm up :)).
Firebottle
29-11-2017, 16:35
By far the best system I have ever heard was at Sonority Design where an awful lot of time, effort and expense was expended on providing THE best acoustic treatment for the demo room and mains supply.
The quality of the kit (about £80K total) just shone through 100%. Coming out afterwards one knew that the experience would never be bettered.
James the Albarry lover
29-11-2017, 17:27
I look at this slightly different, many years ago I went to a classical music recital held in Lincoln cathedral, I can't remember what was played, but the sound was so sweet, especially the high end notes of someone playing a "Triangle".
I cannot replicate Lincoln cathedral in my flat, I came close in my last house, the room was large with the perfect shape and layout for "Hi-Fi", I would say (And a few others on here agree) that your room, layout and furnishings play such a major part in how you hear music.
This would make comparisons between equipment in different room layouts very difficult to say the least.
But when you get the right gear in the right place you will know you have it right.
Don't get too hung up on the gear side of it unless you also get the setting right.
EDIT: Sorry Paul didn't see your post.
My room is horrible for hifi its way too small and upstairs spikes and slabs are a must, the Missions 752 freedoms are good for this kind of environment as they're mostly front ported but all speakers benefit from having room to breath so I totally agree with having a good space for your equipment to work as it should
wee tee cee
29-11-2017, 17:32
My son dropped me off at the physio the other day.
Dropped his yamaha acoustic into a guitar shop to be re stringed then went into LOUD AND CLEAR in Glasgow.
They are a great dealer - no pish or wanky salesman shite.
Theyre listening room is a fully treated stone wall cellar.....anyhow, they let him listen to a top notch moon system!!!
He has crofts a pair of electric beach frugels and a standac seg running off a mac-mark grant and colin wonfor cables.
He is a straight talking no BS - He has 97 percent of the sound in his room.
AOS has done us a turn.
Dont get me started on the 57K B@O orgami things i heard in in a treated room........came home played the same john martyn tune- im pretty chuffed with what i have.
As mentioned its a very personal thing.
James the Albarry lover
29-11-2017, 17:41
I travelled down to Colin Topps place to buy his 57s off him.
He insisted on letting me hear them to make sure I was happy-love them to bits.
Colin made us a brew and buttie and asked if we had 5 minutes to listen to his new eddingdale speakers.
Oh dear....played some tracy chapman on vinyl.
His speakers, I think LDA 30OB mono blocks, bespoke phono stage and pre cant remotely remember what turntable it was.
I was flabbergasted.....best noise ive ever heard from a hi fi.
It has niggled away at me for ages....Colin is in the process of building me a pair of his speakers configured for solid state.
Lifes way too short, I love music so does my son and good lady.
Colin Wonfor has provided me with two lovely amps to marry up to them....chase the dream if you can.
That's brilliant having the misses and son into the hifi, my dad got me into hifi and now I'm a bigger fan of it than him, I love hearing about guys making speakers for the most part you know that they'll put their heart and soul into making them as it's more of a passion compared to the mass producing sweat shops out there
James the Albarry lover
29-11-2017, 17:52
Mine ;)
Seriously though as other have said, its a very personal thing, and I have heard systems from both ends of the scale that blew me a way, for diffrent reasons, likewise' I have heard seriously underwhelming ones from both ends too!:eek:
Definitely a personal thing I agree, I love my little system even though it doesn't compare to the mega bucks systems I've seen on here it has a very warm and musical character I love and if I want to bring the sound more upfront and involving at the price of warmth I just switch to my cd63 from the 6000
paulf-2007
29-11-2017, 19:26
I look at this slightly different, many years ago I went to a classical music recital held in Lincoln cathedral, I can't remember what was played, but the sound was so sweet, especially the high end notes of someone playing a "Triangle".
I cannot replicate Lincoln cathedral in my flat, I came close in my last house, the room was large with the perfect shape and layout for "Hi-Fi", I would say (And a few others on here agree) that your room, layout and furnishings play such a major part in how you hear music.
This would make comparisons between equipment in different room layouts very difficult to say the least.
But when you get the right gear in the right place you will know you have it right.
Don't get too hung up on the gear side of it unless you also get the setting right.
EDIT: Sorry Paul didn't see your post.
Er which Paul are you apologising to and why.
Manicatel
29-11-2017, 19:28
Some fairly high end Vitus Audio stuff, along with some of that weird Entreq stuff, high end TelluriumQ cabling & matching Focal speakers.
No idea what the Entreq stuff does, if anything or whether the TQ cables were so much better than normally priced wires.
But.....
Something was making some incredible music. No fatigue, just effortless music from the lowest bass to the sweetest treble & imaging which made the system disappear.
Way out of my price range but a very enjoyable experience. I’ve heard other big-rig setups, but this just worked.
southall-1998
29-11-2017, 21:39
Krell Evolution system driving Martin Logan CLX's.
S.
Er which Paul are you apologising to and why.
You as you had already covered the room aspect, if I had seen your post I would have said something like "As Paul mentions".
Just being polite.
Pete The Cat
30-11-2017, 09:49
To the OP, it's a hard question to answer after listening to so many systems - and in so many different rooms. But the first great system that I heard was definitely a Sondek, NAD 3020 and Mission 70s in 1982. That's what got me hooked.
Pete
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 10:06
Is it just me, but when I hear mega expensive speakers from the likes of ATC, Avalon and Wilson for instance, they just don't sound that wonderful.
I really like my friend's Garrard 301 / SME312s / ATC SCA2 / Krell FPB-300 / bi-amped B&W Nautilus 801 system that represents something of an ideal for me in terms of detail, resolution and entertainment value. The h0rns Universum 3 mentioned earlier that I heard in Harrogate were exquisite. Perfect to all intents and purposes - beautiful like a piece of modern art and the music just appeared magically in the room. Yet the Tannoy Legacy Cheviots upstairs (with the £39k MSB power amps) had them pasted from an engagement and entertainment point-of-view (they've really lit a fire under me!). These I could live with.
Incidentally the big B&O actives at Harrogate were woeful - although effective in a blunt instrument kind of way with Star Wars, they were flat and grey and a bit chesty with music. Very disappointing.
Yet with all these experiences, I come home and breathe a sigh of relief as my system just sounds so bloody right to my ears. Natural and easy going, with a kind of crystalline purity (especially with digital sources) that rivals the h0rns, lots of entertainment, unfatiguing in long listening sessions. My 804s retain enough of the 801's qualities to scratch that particular itch too (even if they don't shift air in quite the same way!). My system does things that (again for me) none of these other systems do.
So I suppose it's about finding your personal audio nirvana. Recent experiences have given me an upgrade path / roadmap that involves separating the AV and stereo sides within the same system. I don't really think this is necessary, but I think it's probably the best way of moving things on without actually trading up in the AV amp stakes - which I'm not sure would achieve much. (Rambling - I'll stop now.)
Haselsh1
30-11-2017, 10:37
Gotta be honest, the best sounding system I have ever heard was back around 1982. It used my own Logic DM101 with an Alphason HR100S MCS arm and Kiseki Blue cartridge into a Crimson Elektric monobloc and active crossover'd Mission 720 setup. The active crossover was built by Crimson and installed by the dealer I then has an association with. Pete and Keith were really good friends and those days were the best. Sadly, I have never heard anything as dynamic since.
Haselsh1
30-11-2017, 10:39
Is it just me, but when I hear mega expensive speakers from the likes of ATC, Avalon and Wilson for instance, they just don't sound that wonderful.
Yes Geoff. I remember hearing a Naim active system in Sheffield years back and it was extremely uninspiring. I think they may have been SBL's or whatever.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 10:41
Yes Geoff. I remember hearing a Naim active system in Sheffield years back and it was extremely uninspiring. I think they may have been SBL's or whatever.
Yeah. The SBL is a funny one. Some seem to like them a lot. Others, like me, think they sound like a fart under a blanket :D.
Haselsh1
30-11-2017, 10:42
Then again; I remember a system based on a Cranfield Rock and Celestion SL6's with an amplifier called the Legend. Oh my...!
Is it just me, but when I hear mega expensive speakers from the likes of ATC, Avalon and Wilson for instance, they just don't sound that wonderful.
No its not just you Geoff. I have heard plenty of mega bucks systems and the leave you thinking blaaahh, cant wait to get back to my own humble affair.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 10:47
Then again; I remember a system based on a Cranfield Rock and Celestion SL6's with an amplifier called the Legend. Oh my...!
Funny you should say that. I had an Audio Concepts P300 'Legend' power amp driving Celestion SL600Si speakers for a while. Fed by a Garrard 401/Ittok/Technics EPC-305MC cartridge into a Rappaport Pre-2 pre-amp. That all worked rather well.
Haselsh1
30-11-2017, 10:50
Funny you should say that. I had an Audio Concepts P300 'Legend' power amp driving Celestion SL600Si speakers for a while. Fed by a Garrard 401/Ittok/Technics EPC-305MC cartridge into a Rappaport Pre-2 pre-amp. That all worked rather well.
Yep, that's the very one with the matching preamp. Really miss those days back then.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 10:53
Yep, that's the very one with the matching preamp. Really miss those days back then.
The Audio Concepts pre-amp was a bit of a dud, thick and flat sounding. But the power amp was very good. I had a couple of the pre-amps and moved them on sharpish.
Haselsh1
30-11-2017, 10:54
No its not just you Geoff. I have heard plenty of mega bucks systems and the leave you thinking blaaahh, cant wait to get back to my own humble affair.
Yes James, same here. I remember being at a Ramada show years ago walking in on a Tube Technology display. Jesus, Synergy monoblocks with what looked like additional thousands of pounds worth of gear. My then wife and I just turned around and left. It was such a let down. Now those Kelly speakers...!!! Sat there for ages.
Haselsh1
30-11-2017, 10:56
The Audio Concepts pre-amp was a bit of a dud, thick and flat sounding. But the power amp was very good. I had a couple of the pre-amps and moved them on sharpish.
To be honest Geoff it was the SL6's that knocked me for six. Their midrange and voice was just stunning as I remember it. Of course it was decades back now. I have never heard Joan Armatrading sound that good ever again.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 11:01
To be honest Geoff it was the SL6's that knocked me for six. Their midrange and voice was just stunning as I remember it. Of course it was decades back now. I have never heard Joan Armatrading sound that good ever again.
The SL6's were very good. My SL600Si speakers were largely similar, but built into 'aerolam' cabinets. As you say, the mid was excellent. The extreme top was a little short on resolution though, probably the mass of that copper foil dome kicking in.
Haselsh1
30-11-2017, 11:12
My only real experience of reliving those days was helping out at a branch of Sevenoaks Sound and Vision in Hull back around 1997. I was so spoiled by my experiences back in the early/mid eighties that I found the whole Hull thing totally uninspired. This was the time though that I owned a Nottingham Analogue Spacedeck with their early aluminium Spacearm. Sounded good but nowhere near as good as my older Logic DM101. My current sound system is right up where I want to be but I look back at those eighties days with a huge amount of affection.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 11:14
Yeah. The DM101 was highly rated and still is by those who have them.
Is it just me, but when I hear mega expensive speakers from the likes of ATC, Avalon and Wilson for instance, they just don't sound that wonderful.
Not enough soul. Detail freaks would love it though.
paulf-2007
30-11-2017, 16:39
You as you had already covered the room aspect, if I had seen your post I would have said something like "As Paul mentions".
Just being polite.ok thanks Bob
The trouble with high end speakers is that they usually use the same technology as lesser stuff, and so the sound is unlikely to be radically better, just improved versions of the same operating mechanisms.
So high end stuff is usually bigger and thus more visually imposing, and this demands that the finish has attention paid to it, and this contributes greatly to the cost, and this leads to the evolution of audio jewellery, because we end up choosing speakers with our eyes.
You may remember that Quad put slats into the 63 because they thought that the public would think they were paying a lot of money for little in the way of internal works.
We should audition speakers blind, using a curtain.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 23:10
We should audition speakers blind, using a curtain.
Perhaps some should, but I've never had difficulty knowing that I'm hearing a good speaker when I can see it.
We should audition speakers blind, using a curtain.
This is exactly how I came across Tannoy's, as mentioned before, I was in the big Lasky in Tottenham Court Road, I was looking at headphones, someone else was having a speaker demo using a switch to go through different speakers, one stood out by such a margin, they went through them again and again the sound coming from this one particular speaker just shone out, so I went over and asked what they were.
A few weeks later Tannoy had a half price sale prior to moving to Scotland and to celebrate their 50th, so I got my Cheviots for about £350 in 1976.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 23:34
I got my first pair of HPD Eatons at about the same time, from Edgware Road though at £200 new. I'd been using the IIILZ forerunners until then. I'm using Cheviots at the moment. The mega rare Mk.II model.
walpurgis
30-11-2017, 23:47
By the way Bob. What amplifier do you drive your Cheviots with?
Normally a QUAD 33/405 but they are hooked up to a Pioneer receiver at the moment as I use them with my TV and Xbox One, I plan to get the Xbox One X next weekend, and then sometime next year look at a new amp.
And yes the Xbox One is my source for everything, I really do recommend some of you trying one, especially doing some blind testing, you might be surprised at what you hear.
Decades ago now a friend of mine had a Linn LP12, Arcam A60 and Wharfedale Diamond 4 speakers, firing down a large room, about 35 foot by 14, speakers were either side of a bay window and you listened from about half way down the room.
The LP12 was an old one even then, with the s shaped Basik arm and a budget AT cart. Not the last word in anything, not by a long margin. but one of the most involving and entertaining systems I have ever heard. On paper, especially with the size of the room it should have been nothing much. He also had a Technics tape deck with enormously long level meters which sounded fantastic too.
Conversely I have heard systems with 6 figure price tags that, whilst clearly technically superior were boring or even unpleasant to listen to, and some that were good, but not to the extent that the price or technical spec indicated that they should be. It is one of the great mysteries of hi-fi that sometimes all the planets align and you get a great sound. To my knowledge no-one has ever been able to quantify this but there is no doubt in my mind that it happens, and I know others who have had similar experiences.
wee tee cee
01-12-2017, 09:03
Ive only ever been to one hi fi show in the late 80s.
My mate had an inheritance from his aunty burning a whole in his pocket.
Heard a few high end system with rooms packed full of....enthusiasts!
There was an empty room with sugden amps and harbeth or pmc speakers-guy was spot on and let us play anything we fancied.
John martyn solid air- oh boy was I impressed ( but also shit poor pushing trolleys in safeway car parks to scrape through uni)
Sound never left me.....always held onto the thought-one day ill have a system that sounds like that.
Haselsh1
01-12-2017, 09:35
Sound never left me.....always held onto the thought-one day ill have a system that sounds like that.
Yeah, just like my experience with the Celestion SL6's. That sound has never left my mind. Big long room and small stand mounts. Absolutely pivotal moment for me.
I'm amazed as I read some of these posts.
In '70 I bought my Tannoy Golds, and ran them with a 33 and Nelson-Jones 10 +10, and was happy until about '85, at which point I bought some ESS AMT 1aMs which I rebuilt to latest spec. Monitors.
The sound was to me and friends, so far ahead of the Tannoys that everyone was in disbelief, but was that an illusion? Since that time I have had 4 pairs of ATCs, three actives, the latter being 100ASLs which I also rebuilt and spent £1k on.
I then went back to a pair of ESSs and redesigned those several times, and think that these were extremely good, with this path all part of a gradual increase in quality along this time-line.
I now have a pair Of ADAM Tensor Betas, which I consider to be a further development of the ESS speakers, and with much more design effort and rigour. So I am amazed at the eulogising of Tannoys with a 33.
This in my journey, going back to about ;84, and if Tannoys with a 33 really are better, what have I been doing? Spending money and making a prat of myself?
walpurgis
01-12-2017, 09:46
I've run Tannoys with a 33/303 combination. It works, in a dull, 'old fashioned' way.
Robust valve power amps or decent solid state Class A are a different ball game though. This is mainly what I use to drive my Tannoys, in conjunction with TVC pre-amps much of the time. The sound is alive and very lucid. I've heard very expensive systems and don't feel I'm missing out. Quite the reverse actually.
.
This in my journey, going back to about ;84, and if Tannoys with a 33 really are better, what have I been doing? Spending money and making a prat of myself?
if you have then so have most of the rest of us ;)
A 33 is pretty poor pre-amp, possibly, in fact certainly, one of the worst I have ever heard. The 303 on the other hand, is a different matter. Used within their limits they are very good.
Being able to hear into the recording and having a sound which communicates and is enjoyable are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But it isn't easy to get the balance right.
In the 70s I bought a 303 and tried it for a few days, the bass was woolly, and the top not as good as the NJ amp.
Sold it within a week. The 33 is now very old, and upgrade rebuilds are available, neat bit of industrial design though.
Way back in 1987, I went to a hi end salon to shop for a CD player. They placed me in a room with the two Sony ES CD players I was considering attached to a Klyne preamp, that was driving the biggest pair of Krell monoblocks I’ve ever seen! They were huge! I wish I could remember what model they were? Most likely the flagship of that year. And they were driving a pair of Martin Login Sequals. I brought a stack of my own CD’s and sat there spinning one after the other until the salesman came in and told me the shop was closing. Truly the most 3 dimensional, right there in the room, experience I’ve ever had. I cannot imagine hi fi could ever get better than that. I’ve been chasing that sound ever since and have never come close.
Although, on another occasion the salesman wanted to show me what I could have bought for the same money I had in my own system. So he played a SOTA record player into a B&K preamp driving two B&K Sonata monoblocks, very affordable amps, driving a pair of Vandersteen 2c’s, it was impressively Musical and the saxophone player was right in the room with us! Most impressive and really hurt my feelings because it was approx. the same price as what I had at home!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
AJSki2fly
02-12-2017, 13:00
It is the one below in signature, for the following reasons.
1. A natural and musical rendition of music, which sounds quite accurate with good bass.
2. It did not cost an arm and a leg (relatively speaking), amps and speakers were 2nd hand, and are excellent value.
3. The Gyrodec I know is not what everyone would spend there money on, but with the SME IV, and Cusis MC cartridge(Ben Micro Wood SL with upgrade casing) and Orbe upgrade it goods a great musical rendition.
4. The speakers, well they just speak for themselves, I think that I would have to spend a fortune to better them and paired with the amps it is extremely musical and natural.
5. the Tilbury passive pre-amp is the bargain item in the system that just gives amazing results, totally neutral.
If I won the lottery then it would be Jardis amps and some serious speakers, if I ever get the chance then the next step would be and SME Turntable possible, or maybe a Pink Triangle limited if I could find one
I'm glad I can't remember exactly what it sounded like - it was in a high end shop called London Sound in Ruislip a long time ago.
I don't want to listen to anyone else's stuff really - in case it is better. It is rubbish when you have to go back to your own system after hearing a better one. Like driving a BMW 7 series and then jumping in a 1990s Peugeot 206.
walpurgis
02-12-2017, 16:49
I'm glad I can't remember exactly what it sounded like - it was in a high end shop called London Sound in Ruislip a long time ago
That shop was on Field End Road in Eastcote, near Ruislip. London Sound was (and probably still is) run by Mike Solomons. The main demo system I recall seeing there was Quad. I heard the 33/303 driving a pair of ESL's. He swapped the 303 over for a 405 and the sound improved considerably. The 405 was a brand new model at that time, so around 1975.
He moved his business to Harrow on The Hill not long after, West Street I believe. Later relocated to Alexandra Avenue, Rayners Lane. Were he has remained as far as I know.
A 33 is pretty poor pre-amp, possibly, in fact certainly, one of the worst I have ever heard.
TBH, so are the vast majority of vintage preamps, as they are overly complex internally (especially those adorned with tone controls) and contain electronic components that are VASTLY outclassed by the best of what's produced today.
The same also applies to phono stages, and therefore both represent areas where quality vintage equipment is not best represented, unlike it is in areas such as power amps, loudspeakers or turntables.
As for Tannoys and active ATCs; they are entirely different animals, and I've heard outstanding sounds from both.
However, as ever with speakers especially, it's a question of choosing your compromises, and to my ears despite their overall talents, the performance of active ATCs will always be governed by the limitations of their on-board amp packs, which for me make them, musically, sound rather flat and anodyne, certainly when compared with what's possible when the same speakers are driven passively, by top-notch external amplification, such as I've heard from Naim, Bryston and ECS.
Therefore, it's not quite as some think that the active route is automatically superior, because of the lack of a crossover (and associated distortion). That would be fine if all else were equal, which it's not, as to my ears those benefits are outweighed by the fact that the on-board amps can clearly be bettered (albeit at some cost) by top-notch external amplification - and that, for me, is the ONLY way to truly hear what ATCs can do! :cool:
Marco.
That is interesting Marco, because my second pair of active 50s were just prior to the redesign of the amp pack, and Ashley James then at ATC, said that those actives were embarrassed by passives driven by AVI amplification at a show at that time.
Potentially actives can blow passives out of the water, but it requires the designer to utilise all the advantages so that that that can be achieved. Tim Issacs designed the earlier and then second version amp packs until about '02.
I have put my trust in B&O as a company with good reputation wrt their ICEpower.
walpurgis
02-12-2017, 23:49
Hmm. Active speakers are something I've not really got involved with apart from brief encounters with subs. Heard loads though, including big ATC's.
I'd imagine most would use Class D amps with SMPS these days, simply because of the excellent power to weight ratio, low heat generation and decent enough sound quality if done right. And of course cost.
That is interesting Marco, because my second pair of active 50s were just prior to the redesign of the amp pack, and Ashley James then at ATC, said that those actives were embarrassed by passives driven by AVI amplification at a show at that time.
No worries, I'm simply relating the results of my listening experience to date in that area. I've yet to hear ANY active speakers, to my ears, sound as musically convincing as the best passives (with simple crossovers), driven by top-notch external amplification.
It's easy looking at things from solely an objective perspective, observing the lack of crossovers and connecting cables (to external amps), and the simplifying of the signal path and lowering of distortion as a result, and come to the conclusion that the active route *has* to be better.
However, as I said, that's ONLY when ALL else is equal, not necessarily when compared with quality passive designs, with simple and well-executed crossovers, which only minutely distort the audio signal, no more so perhaps than the on-board amps inside actives, and when said passives are partnered with external amps that simply blow away the compromised 'built to a price' on-board amps in question.
It makes perfect sense in a recording studio (for convenience and space-saving sake) to employ the use of active loudspeakers, but the same rules don't apply at home. You have to balance out ALL of the compromises in both passive and active approaches, to be able to judge things properly, and not simply be 'seduced by the numbers'.
The same objectivist mentality dictates that passive preamps 'must' to be better than actives ones, which is simply another fallacy.
Potentially actives can blow passives out of the water, but it requires the designer to utilise all the advantages so that that that can be achieved. Tim Issacs designed the earlier and then second version amp packs until about '02.
Potentially perhaps, but I've yet to hear it delivered in the real world, and certainly not if you consider that valve amplification, done well, usurps anything that solid-state is capable of [count me in]. Given that thinking, then one would never use active speakers, as I've yet to see any employ the use of valves inside on-board amp packs! ;)
Marco.
I'd imagine most would use Class D amps with SMPS these days, simply because of the excellent power to weight ratio, low heat generation and decent enough sound quality if done right. And of course cost.
Indeed, and thus hardly the ideal recipe for creating the best sound. "Decent enough" perhaps, but genuinely the best, I think not...
Marco.
I find it interesting that reading through these 65 posts that the majority of “best experiences”, has happened in the remote past. Only a few speak of experiences that have happened in this century. Is that to say that state of the art hasn’t changed as much as prices would lead us to believe? Or are we all so old that we haven’t been in a salon in the past 20 years?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The same objectivist mentality dictates that passive preamps 'must' to be better than actives ones, which is simply another fallacy.
Not exactly. Objectively you can only say what is better in theory, and indeed active speakers and passive pre amps are better in theory, i.e they are technically superior. What an individual subjectively prefers is another matter entirely.
As a species, we tend to hark back to halcyon days; Pink Floyd wouldn't be the audiophile darlings they are if that wasn't the case!
Was the best system I have ever heard really the first high-end system I encountered, up on the top floor of 'The Music Room' in Manchester? Probably not, but it's the one that sticks because I'd not heard anything like it before.
I have become far more opinionated about the fact that there are no definites in audio. I'm not sure how a strong opinion about that works though!
walpurgis
03-12-2017, 10:00
I have become far more opinionated about the fact that there are no definites in audio. I'm not sure how a strong opinion about that works though!
Many of us think the same (I think :)).
reubensheldon
03-12-2017, 10:22
This thread is proving interesting reading for me as I own active ATC speakers with anniversary amp pack. Speaker choice definitely depends on what sort of sound you like. I've owned some serious speakers with serious amps such as B&W 800 Diamonds and the ATC's are the best overall sound I've had in my room. Counter to what I have read on hifi sites I haven't found them to be tiring to listen to especially compared to the B&W's which were very reliant on the quality of the source material.
Best ever sound was my first introduction to hifi. I was around 14 and a friends dad a big old pair of Goodmans speakers. No idea what type of separates they were connected to. At the time I owned a very cheap record player with built in amp that came with a pair of speakers all wrapped in cheap wood laminate. A big wow moment, real bass! Unfortunately we had a house party and blew one of them up.
Not exactly. Objectively you can only say what is better in theory, and indeed active speakers and passive pre amps are better in theory, i.e they are technically superior. What an individual subjectively prefers is another matter entirely.
Indeed, but in audio, theories (which are all good and well) often fall down when applied in practice! The latter is ALL that matters to me, and what my ears tell me in the real world. And if that contradicts the theories, then that's what becomes *my* reality. Simples! :)
Also, often what is claimed as being 'technically superior' only applies in isolation, i.e. out with the context of a working system, where other variables come into play that can (and do) skew matters. After all, a system or component is only as good as its weakest link.
For example, in the case of active speakers. They may be a 'technically superior' solution, *on paper*, but in actuality, how much of a hindrance are the on-board amp packs, compared with when a much more capable external amplifier is used, in a passive context?
Does the absence of a crossover automatically guarantee a better sound, or does the sonic superiority of a more capable external amplifier negate the detrimental effects of the crossover?
Much of course depends on how well the crossover concerned has been designed and how many components are in the signal path (and how good the amp packs in question are), but these are things that can ONLY be assessed by LISTENING - not simply by relying on theories.
Marco.
I have become far more opinionated about the fact that there are no definites in audio.
Feel free to be opinionated about what is an undeniable fact (or rather that there are very few definites), no matter how much the 'measurists' and number-crunchers insist otherwise! ;)
Marco.
paulf-2007
03-12-2017, 10:57
As a species, we tend to hark back to halcyon days; Pink Floyd wouldn't be the audiophile darlings they are if that wasn't the case!
Was the best system I have ever heard really the first high-end system I encountered, up on the top floor of 'The Music Room' in Manchester? Probably not, but it's the one that sticks because I'd not heard anything like it before.
I have become far more opinionated about the fact that there are no definites in audio. I'm not sure how a strong opinion about that works though!
Dave gilmour is a very average guitar player
Dave gilmour is a very average guitar playerI don't get him or Pink Floyd, but I whisper it around these parts!
For example, in the case of active speakers. They may be a 'technically superior' solution, on paper, but in actuality, how much of a hindrance are the on-board amp packs, compared with when a much more capable external amplifier is used, in a passive context?
Does the absence of a crossover automatically guarantee a better sound, or does the sonic superiority of the more capable external amplifier negate the detrimental effects of the crossover? Much of course depends on how well the crossover concerned has been designed and how many components are in the signal path (and how good the amp packs in question are), but these are things that can ONLY be assessed by LISTENING - not simply by relying on theories.
Marco.
'Active' doesn't mean the amps have to be inside the speaker. With active you are applying bandwidth limiting to the signal before it reaches the amp instead of doing it after the amp as in a passive system. Amp can be in or out of the speakers. You could have an active system using your TD valve amp, or multiples of them, if you wanted to.
Beyond that it is all subjective - some people prefer passive ATC, some prefer the active version. There is no way to quantify that, it is just down to the individual's expectations and preferences.
The fact that what is superior on paper is not necessarily superior in reality is just an indicator of how many variables there are in an audio system and how hard it is to quantify them when trying to assess them by subjective impression alone.
In other words what you think is making the sound to your liking is not necessarily what actually is making the sound to your liking. Likewise if you don't like it, how do you know it is, for example, the amplifier that is the problem? Listening alone will not enable you to deduce this.
The only way to determine that is by objective measurement. Trying to work it out by listening alone will lead to all sorts of incorrect conclusions being drawn. And potentially a lot of money wasted.
For example you are suggesting that active ATC are held back by the quality of the amplifiers within them. But to come to that conclusion by listening alone you are rejecting the influence of the source, pre-amp and the room. And unless you listen to a wide variety of programme the music you use for your listening test will also be a factor.
The hardened subjectivist will say that if they like it then they like it and that is all that matters, which is fair enough. It is when they go on to draw technical conclusions as to why they like it, solely from listening, that errors begin to occur.
Although tending to being an objectivist, I do not deny my ears, or assert that everything is determined by good numbers; to me that is just another form of rather silly subjectivism. I see no conflict between the two camps, the objective measurables are universally true, but do not define everything because we have a limited knowledge only, and there must be so much more to discover.
They do however underlie all that we know in audio, and it is desirable to get them as right as possible, and in the case of actives there are about 26 benefits in principle over the passive approach. The theories are right, but incomplete as an audio account.
It is possible of course to design not utilising many of these benefits, or not doing so well, and also possible to put an enormous amount of work and expenditure into passive design and achieve an excellent result.
Ashley James, lately of AVI slates ATCs on the basis of the lower roll-off of the mid range driver, having propounded their virtues for many years through the 90s and beyond, but I have never heard criticism of the amp packs prior to Marco's. It seems to me hardly likely that ATC would sabotage such a high effort design by knowingly using compromised amplification, and their power amps, similar in design principle are IMO very good, (SPA2).
You would probably then Marco, dislike my Betas on the basis of the type of amplification they use, and I must say that having high frequency oscillators as a basis for amplification did at first repel me instinctually, especially after years of dealing with the problem of parasitic oscillations in valve amplifiers. But hey-ho, my ears tell me that my instinct was borne of an inappropriate reaction.
We mostly have been in this game for a long time, and there is no doubt in my mind that early breakthroughs in listening experience are very deep and profound, and likely to be a result of more major differences that in our later years. This compares well with some other of our early experiences; first wild strawberry, first curry, and many others.
One last point, all experiences are contextual, much research being done on tis currently, and our very variable psychological preoccupation, is a backdrop to all our experiences, and this may account for the liking of a particular piece of music on one occasion, for it to leave one wondering at a later time what that was all about, it now having little impact.
The fact that what is superior on paper is not necessarily superior in reality is just an indicator of how many variables there are in an audio system and how hard it is to quantify them when trying to assess them by subjective impression alone.
Indeed, and the very same applies if trying to assess them by measurement alone. The variables still exist, just in a different area.
In other words what you think is making the sound to your liking is not necessarily what actually is making the sound to your liking. Likewise if you don't like it, how do you know it is, for example, the amplifier that is the problem? Listening alone will not enable you to deduce this.
Indeed, and neither will measurements alone. BOTH are necessary, but for different reasons, unless you care not a jot what the measurements say, and simply trust your ears, regardless [count me in].
The only way to determine that is by objective measurement. Trying to work it out by listening alone will lead to all sorts of incorrect conclusions being drawn. And potentially a lot of money wasted.
And once again, the same applies with working it out by measurement alone. You seem to be under the misapprehension that measurements act some form of indisputable proof, in terms of how good a piece of equipment is at doing its job, when the reality is they only ever tell PART of the story.
Also, in terms of your last bit, and incorrect conclusions being drawn and a lot of money wasted, I seem to have done not too badly with my system, having assembled it almost entirely by paying no attention whatsoever to measurements, and as a result have been using an unchanged system very satisfactorily for years, with almost no box swaps. Hardly then wasting a lot of money!
And where are all the "incorrect conclusions" I've supposedly made, as a result of working things out by listening alone, and as a result having wasted lots of money on my 'mistakes'? The evidence, in my case, doesn't support that particular theory.
So was I just 'lucky' or what? ;)
Marco.
Dave gilmour is a very average guitar player
Try to reproduce anywhere near his tone though.
IIndeed, and once again, the same applies with working it out by measurement alone. You seem to be under the misapprehension that measurements act some form of indisputable proof, in terms of how good a piece of equipment is at doing its job, when the reality is they only ever tell PART of the story.
No, at all. I'm saying that only measurements can explain why we are hearing what we hear.
Like hearing a great system and assuming it is because the speakers are a great design. Or hearing a poor system and deciding from that that the speakers are a poor design, when in fact it could be the room, or the amp, or the source that are the problem.
You might think the speakers have a poor bass response, for example, when in fact it is because the amp cannot drive them properly into the low impedance load they present.
Or it might be that they do have a poor bass response regardless of amp used. But how do you know the poor bass is an amp or a speaker problem without measuring? Like Dennis I do not see listening and measuring as being mutually exclusive, in fact they are complimentary. Both are flawed approaches when taken individually which is why I always wince when I see someone saying 'I just need to listen and that tells me everything I need to know.' No, it doesn't!
Read the forums and you see people making these assumptions all the time based on nothing more than listening to a couple of tracks. That may be enough to tell you whether you like or do not like what the system does but it tells you nothing about why you like or don't like it.
No, at all. I'm saying that only measurements can explain why we are hearing what we hear.
Unfortunately, that's where we fundamentally disagree. I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear, so given that's what I believe, how can they ever act as conclusive proof for explaining what I hear?
You have to get your head around the fact that any measurement taken is only as good as the context in which it's been applied.
It will almost certainly only act as a guideline, in terms of outlining what is actually happening, not indisputable proof - and that's fundamentally where your argument falls down, simply because you believe too much in the correlation between measurements, and the efficacy of the equipment represented by those measurements.
And, I'll ask again, where are all the mistakes and incorrect conclusions I've made with my system, leading to me spending loads of money on 'mistakes', simply because I assess things by listening alone? You asserted that as a fact, so I'd ask you to show some evidence of that in my circumstances, or withdraw your assertion.
Marco.
A system may measure beautifully but if the listener does not enjoy the sound, its no good for that listener.
We also listen with our eyes more than we would like to admit. If it looks great, our minds often will it to sound great too.
And, I'll ask again, where are all the mistakes and incorrect conclusions I've made with my system, leading to me spending loads of money on my 'mistakes', simply because I assess things by listening alone? You asserted that as a fact, so I'd ask you to show some evidence of that in my circumstances, or withdraw your assertion.
Marco.
Okay then. You used to have Naim amplification and Spendors IIRC. Why does your current system sounds better than that one?
Unfortunately, that's where we fundamentally disagree. I contend that many technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear, so given that's what I believe, how can they ever act as a conclusive arbiter for explaining what I hear?
You have to get your head around the fact that any measurement is only as good as the context in which it's been applied. It will almost always only act as a guideline as to what is actually happening, not indisputable proof - and that's fundamentally where your argument falls down, simply because you believe too much in the unfailing accuracy of measurements.
And, I'll ask again, where are all the mistakes and incorrect conclusions I've made with my system, leading to me spending loads of money on my 'mistakes', simply because I assess things by listening alone? You asserted that as a fact, so I'd ask you to show some evidence of that in my circumstances, or withdraw your assertion.
Marco.
Marco,
I believe that we can measure all we can hear. What we probably can't then measure is how the brain interprets what we can hear. Enjoyment is subjective, and I guess therefore immmeasurable.
By common consensus, valve systems measure poorly generally compared to solid state systems, yet many audiophiles express great enjoyment in what they hear. An oscilloscope may suggest that it is not as good, but if the brain interprets its sound as more enjoyable then it cannot be argued against.
Okay then. You used to have Naim amplification and Spendors IIRC. Why does your current system sounds better than that one?
Lol... I owned my Naim/Spendor system for over six years (again assembled with no consideration given towards measurements), and enjoyed every minute of it, so that certainly wasn't a mistake.
That I *upgraded* to what I currently have (which I've now been using for longer than that) is largely due to after hearing how much better a decent valve amp was (a then Chinese one, costing a mere £300, called a Yaqin MC-100B), compared with nearly £5k's worth of Naim amps, which one would've suspected would've measured better than said valve amp, is testament to the fact that one cannot rely on measurements! :D
Don't get me wrong, the Naim gear was great, otherwise I couldn't have lived with it for as long as I did, but when I heard a valve amp in my system deliver a sound that was the polar opposite of what up until then I had been led to believe was how valves sounded (warm and cuddly), I was smitten - and the rest is history!
So to answer your question, the reason why my current system sounds better than my previous one, is largely due to the 'valve factor', which certainly can't be explained by measurements. The measurements would simply have 'disproved' the conclusion I eventually reached! :eyebrows:
And if I can reach the happy state I'm in with my system, by paying scant attention to measurements, then so can others, which I'm afraid disproves your earlier assertion about wasting money on "incorrect conclusions", if you rely solely on listening.
The problem is, not everyone has such confidence in the efficacy of their own judgement, and therefore needs some form or 'objective proof' to confirm what they hear, or the supporting opinion of an 'expert'. I've never been like that. If I'm confident enough that something is right, then I GO for it - and stick with it.
Trust me, that's one of the main reasons why I've ended up with the system I have, and am not still pissing around trying to get a good sound, despite having been at this game for nearly 30 years! :)
Marco.
Marco,
I believe that we can measure all we can hear. What we probably can't then measure is how the brain interprets what we can hear. Enjoyment is subjective, and I guess therefore immmeasurable.
I totally agree with the latter part Geoff, but disagree with the former - or rather we probably can, but don't always know how to.
For example with cables, for me there is definitely something going on which would be measurable, and would explain why a mains lead, properly designed for hi-fi purposes, sounds different from a bog-standard 'kettle lead', but currently isn't measurable, either because we're looking into the wrong area, or the measurement equipment we're using hasn't been designed to measure what *actually* needs measuring - both of which fall outside the area of the ear/brain relationship.
By common consensus, valve systems measure poorly generally compared to solid state systems, yet many audiophiles express great enjoyment in what they hear. An oscilloscope may suggest that it is not as good, but if the brain interprets its sound as more enjoyable then it cannot be argued against.
Absolutely, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the audiophiles in question are enjoying what they're hearing because valves are inferior, and they're simply being 'seduced by euphonic distortion'. It could be that they're hearing something important, unique to valves, that is fundamental to faithful music reproduction, and which exists, but which currently can't be proven by measurements - or as I said above, we haven't looked at yet in the right way :)
We have to get the idea out of our heads that every measurement taken *automatically* tells us ALL that we need to know about what we're measuring for, and instead learn to question the measurement, if our ears tell us something different, than instead always questioning our ears!
Marco.
walpurgis
03-12-2017, 13:47
We also listen with our eyes more than we would like to admit
Not me matey. I don't think I'd describe any of the equipment I own as particularly ugly, but I really don't give a toss what it looks like.
What my ears tell me is all that counts in my book.
paulf-2007
03-12-2017, 14:19
Try to reproduce anywhere near his tone though.
I agree his tone is good. I have always prided myself on good tone, maybe I am compensating for my limited ability too:)
paulf-2007
03-12-2017, 14:27
Not me matey. I don't think I'd describe any of the equipment I own as particularly ugly, but I really don't give a toss what it looks like.
What my ears tell me is all that counts in my book.same here, I once showed someone a photo of my kit and they said " it looked a right mish mash and nothing matched " so what it's what it sounds like that matters, I don't sit looking at it, except my turntable, that was my choice when I built it. Everything was bought on gut feeling, it's served me well too.
I agree his tone is good. I have always prided myself on good tone, maybe I am compensating for my limited ability too:)
He he perhaps. Another guitarist that springs to mind is Robert Smith.
Not me matey. I don't think I'd describe any of the equipment I own as particularly ugly, but I really don't give a toss what it looks like.
What my ears tell me is all that counts in my book.More than we'd like to admit!
southall-1998
03-12-2017, 15:29
Lol... I owned my Naim/Spendor system for over six years (again assembled with no consideration given towrds measurements), and enjoyed every minute of it, so that certainly wasn't a mistake.
That I *upgraded* to what I currently have (which I've now been using for longer than that) is largely due to after hearing how much better a decent valve amp was (at the time a cheap Chinese one, costing £300), compared with nearly £5k's worth of Naim amps, which one would've suspected would've measured better than said valve amp, is testament to the fact that one cannot rely on measurements! :D
So to answer your question, the reason why my current system sounds better than my previous one, is largely due to the 'valve factor', which certainly can't be explained by measurements. The measurements would have 'disproved' the (opposite) conclusion I eventually reached! :eyebrows:
And if I can reach the happy state I'm in with my system, by paying scant attention to measurements, then so can others, which I'm afraid disproves your earlier assertion about wasting money on "incorrect conclusions", if you rely solely on listening.
The problem is, not everyone has such confidence in the efficacy of their own judgement, and therefore needs some form or 'objective proof' to confirm what they hear, or the supporting opinion of some 'expert'. I've never been like that. If I'm confident enough that I think something is right, then I go for it, and stick with it.
Trust me, that's one of the main reasons why I've ended up with the system I have, and am not still pissing around trying to get a good sound, despite having been at this game for nearly 30 years! :)
Marco.
Which Naim amps did you have, Marco?
S.
Which Naim amps did you have, Marco?
S.Everyone is an expert in choosing the system that sounds better to them.
kininigin
03-12-2017, 15:54
I haven't really heard too many systems but working in people's home's, i occasionally get to see and hear the customers HiFi. One customer had some Avantgarde big horn jobbies along with some valve amps i forget the name of and a cd player i also forget the name of. In total it cost about 25k. I asked him if i could listen to it and he obliged. It had a very 3D soundstage, which you could almost walk around which was very impressive! It was very sweet and liquidy in that euphonic valvey way! So whilst i was impressed with the scale and sounstaging and also the detailing i heard, i did find it extremely coloured! It was probably the second thing i noticed about it!.
The best system i have actually heard outside of domestic use, was at the Q club Birmingham to see Eat Static! The sheer power,clarity,detail,scale,tone was gobsmacking!!! All this was totally distortion free! I will never forget that sound for as long as i live!
Which Naim amps did you have, Marco?
S.
Hi Shane,
NAC52/Supercap/NAP135s. Actually, I think that lot was more like £6k.
Marco.
Everyone is an expert in choosing the system that sounds better to them.
Lol - but when you've demonstrated either your full system or key parts of it in public, at places like Scalford and NEBO, over the years, and almost everyone present (who wouldn't be afraid to tell you if they didn't like it) concludes that it sounds as good to them, as it does to you, then you *know* that you've done something right ;)
Marco.
That shop was on Field End Road in Eastcote, near Ruislip. London Sound was (and probably still is) run by Mike Solomons. The main demo system I recall seeing there was Quad. I heard the 33/303 driving a pair of ESL's. He swapped the 303 over for a 405 and the sound improved considerably. The 405 was a brand new model at that time, so around 1975.
He moved his business to Harrow on The Hill not long after, West Street I believe. Later relocated to Alexandra Avenue, Rayners Lane. Were he has remained as far as I know.
Still going? Wow. It was about 1983 when I went I think. He did this trick with an SME arm where he put a pencil under the record when it was playing - creating a massive up and down movement for the arm - which of course worked without any problems. His favorite TT at the time was a glass/ perspex thing - can't remember the name. I had all my records cleaned there - he had a Keith Monks Machine. And it bloody worked too!
May have been Raynors Lane actually. Long time ago
walpurgis
03-12-2017, 21:24
His favorite TT at the time was a glass/ perspex thing - can't remember the name.
It wouldn't have been one of these would it? The mega rare IMF transcription turntable.
http://i64.tinypic.com/2q3ney8.jpg
farflungstar
03-12-2017, 21:41
It wouldn't have been one of these would it? The mega rare IMF transcription turntable.
http://i64.tinypic.com/2q3ney8.jpgOooooh lovely
walpurgis
03-12-2017, 21:45
Oooooh lovely
Yes. That is rather nice. No idea how good it was though. I believe that is a Micro Seiki arm on it.
It wouldn't have been one of these would it? The mega rare IMF transcription turntable.
http://i64.tinypic.com/2q3ney8.jpg
That's it! I remember thinking that the disk did not having much support - just in 3 places. So, the best thing I ever heard was this with a black SME arm, probably QUAD amplification. He let me play my own LPs. It was a quiet day and he indulged me, knowing I wouldn't spend more than the record-cleaning money. He did like to show off a bit though. Well. if you know him, you'd know lol
walpurgis
03-12-2017, 21:55
He did like to show off a bit though. Well. if you know him, you'd know lol
I don't know about showing off, but he does like to talk. Not seen Mike for years, but sometimes it was a job to escape his shop! :)
southall-1998
03-12-2017, 22:10
Mike Solomons appears to be lacking in good reputation!
S.
Mike Solomons appears to be lacking in good reputation!
S.
You didn't get that impression from me I hope!
southall-1998
03-12-2017, 22:22
You didn't get that impression from me I hope!
Nope, online reviews.
S.
When a statement of this quality is made, it severely undermines the frequent and forceful posts made by the poster.
"I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear".
A master of the non sequitur.
Sorry, Dennis, I don't understand the point you're making. Could you 'spit it out' a little more plainly?
Marco.
walpurgis
04-12-2017, 00:28
When a statement of this quality is made, it severely undermines the frequent and forceful posts made by the poster.
"I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear".
A master of the non sequitur.
Hmm. Measurements may not be "flawed", but they can certainly be inadequate to define what we hear.
Indeed! However...
The results of measurements are flawed, if the information that they provide does not represent ALL that needs to be known, in respect of the phenomenon being measured, thus in effect only providing 'half of the story'. This is especially true when the measurements in question are being used as evidence to 'prove' the apparent non-existence of said phenomenon.
Therefore, if a measurement taken is only providing us with half of the story, rather than the full story required, then how is that anything other than flawed?
And there are numerous examples of such in hi-fi, where what some of us can genuinely hear (e.g sonic differences between various types of mains leads) apparently aren't currently measurable, and therefore don't exist, I would contend only because what's being measured isn't telling us the full story of what's going on, and therefore is flawed.
It can also lead to possibly flawed further conclusions being reached, such as because those differences are unable to be measured, that they're therefore imagined. Maybe they're not being imagined, but rather simply not revealed, due to a flawed or insufficiently thorough measuring process?
Marco.
Hi Dennis,
Sorry I missed this earlier (I was having my lunch at the time):
Ashley James, lately of AVI slates ATCs on the basis of the lower roll-off of the mid range driver, having propounded their virtues for many years through the 90s and beyond, but I have never heard criticism of the amp packs prior to Marco's. It seems to me hardly likely that ATC would sabotage such a high effort design by knowingly using compromised amplification...
It's not about 'sabotaging' anything; it's the fact that every product is ultimately built to a price, and therefore decisions will have been taken as to where to cut costs and make compromises - and I believe that area is in the amp modules, which although adequate for their intended application, aren't the 'last word' in performance.
Also, the vast majority of ATC's customers are in the recording and broadcast industry, where active speakers are considered the norm, so that's just how they're used to doing things. However, it doesn't mean that the active approach is the universally best solution, simply that it's a solution that best suits a particular environment.
You would probably then Marco, dislike my Betas on the basis of the type of amplification they use...
I don't 'automatically dislike' anything, Dennis. I may be naturally predisposed to preferring certain things, based on what I consider is the best approach, as we all are, but I would never conclusively judge any equipment or speakers without listening to them first.
We mostly have been in this game for a long time, and there is no doubt in my mind that early breakthroughs in listening experience are very deep and profound, and likely to be a result of more major differences that in our later years. This compares well with some other of our early experiences; first wild strawberry, first curry, and many others.
I think that's absolutely correct, and a very good observation.
One last point, all experiences are contextual, much research being done on tis currently, and our very variable psychological preoccupation, is a backdrop to all our experiences, and this may account for the liking of a particular piece of music on one occasion, for it to leave one wondering at a later time what that was all about, it now having little impact.
Try as I might to understand the above, despite reading it over several times, I don't get what you're trying to say. However, I suspect it contains another astute observation, so perhaps you can help me unravel it? :)
Marco.
"I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear".
The fact that we cant measure all that we can 'genuinely hear', does not in any way have a bearing on whether or not some technical measurements are fatally flawed; the two are quite separate, but may indicate their inadequacy to fully explain all.
I accept that I was being presumptive about the your inclination on ICEpower, and meant no offence.
I didn't mean "sabotage" in a literal sense, perhaps "compromise" would have been abetter choice of word.
The last point is that we are not 'objective beings' in any absolute sense. We always have an internal psychological context which is our backdrop to the I/C information we receive, and optical illusions show us how our perceptions are also influenced by other I/C information.
We may think of this internal 'backscape' as fixed, but it is far from that, and it will affect our perceptions as well as how we may filter the content of the I/C information. The internal 'backscape' is always adapting, and shifting its 'selectively chosen' content and focus, within our own vast databases of experience. This could be thought of, and linked to mood variation.
All technical measurements are valid, though their significance may be major, minor, and even questionable.
This is quite separate from our lack of a comprehensive knowledge, ie. limitation in understanding, of audio.
Our understanding is really rather primitive, especially when realising that most of our 'hearing' is processing in the brain, we have a few known and valid variables which we use, but which cannot define the whole reality.
Absolutely right Geoff.
"I contend that some technical measurements produced are fatally flawed, simply because we can't currently measure all that we can genuinely hear".
The fact that we cant measure all that we can 'genuinely hear', does not in any way have a bearing on whether or not some technical measurements are fatally flawed; the two are quite separate, but may indicate their inadequacy to fully explain all.
Ok, fair enough. I should have said:
"I contend that some technical measurements can be used to distort the truth, because they don't necessarily provide all the information required about the phenomenon being measured, and therefore can't act as definitive proof, in circumstances where they are being used to disprove the existence of that phenomenon".
Extrapolating that further, I would add... And therefore, any argument put forward using measurements in that way, is potentially fatally flawed.
How's that? :)
I accept that I was being presumptive about the your inclination on ICEpower, and meant no offence.
No offense taken.
I didn't mean "sabotage" in a literal sense, perhaps "compromise" would have been abetter choice of word.
Indeed, and I've identified where I consider compromises have been made in active speakers.
There are also obvious compromises in passive ones, so at the end of the day, we simply have to choose which ones we can most easily live with, as there is no universally, 'definitively best' solution to anything in audio, no matter how measurements are used by some to portray that assertion as fact.
The last point is that we are not 'objective beings' in any absolute sense. We always have an internal psychological context which is our backdrop to the I/C information we receive, and optical illusions show us how our perceptions are also influenced by other I/C information.
Indeed, and given that's the case, it seems fatally flawed (there's that term again) to adopt a purely objective outlook to assessing audio, when it's alien to our 'natural DNA'...
All technical measurements are valid, though their significance may be major, minor, and even questionable.
This is quite separate from our lack of a comprehensive knowledge, ie. limitation in understanding, of audio.
Yes I agree, but they're only valid, in terms of how they've been applied, within the specific context of what's being measured. Therefore out with of that, should only be considered as providing a guideline as to what *may* be happening, or in terms of indicating the existence or otherwise of a specific phenomenon, not definitive proof of such.
So yes, significance is a big part of it all, and the refusal of some people to accept that fact, and worse, use measurements simply to support the values of their scientific belief system, and preach to others how they are unquestionably correct, is where so much dangerous misinformation is born!
Marco.
In general people can and do use any supposed truth to do all sorts of wrongs and evils in this world, and audio is no special forum for this, having no special facility for it.
What you are describing is human beings breaking rules of logic and argument either to deliberately deceive others, or, and this is often the case, to deceive themselves in an attempt to alleviate their own internal conflict, and in so doing provide themselves with an internal comfort zone.
People chat themselves up all the time, and if a few victims are also caught up in this self created BS, well, that may well provide them with further support for their illusions.
I do not know what you mean by "adopting a purely objective outlook in audio". I also think that what I hear, whilst a subjective perception, ie. it is my own, it is also me having the facility to "perceive that which is ourtside of myself", this being the definition of objectivity.
Objectivity requires discipline both in methodology and personal will, the latter often being very hard under certain social pressures. Three come to mind, exam pressure, which lowers one's functionality, interviews where tension lessens performance, and peer group pressure to conform, this latter can be very insidious and powerful.
The 'objective' measures are very limited, but universally true; if we take any amplifier and increase its distortion, its noise, worsen its transient behaviour, reduce its bandwidth, and a few other factors, as we do so, it will sound worse and less like the original source which it is being fed.
It really is a quick matter to subject a piece of audio equipment to a series of tests, and eliminate what we know to be main criteria for failed sound quality as listed above. Having done that now we can listen agast at the seeming differences which may exist between equipments, and wonder what the hell is going on. My mind boggled at the use of Kimber 8TC with my ESS woofers, and I still have no idea what was going on.
With that established, the audio world can move on to find other new parameters and variables which also define sound, but other than TIM in the 80s, I see no further evidence of new criteria.
Of course we will still hear different sounds as better or worse despite the measurements; our sensitivities to certain errors must vary amongst the population, and so some will be more offended than others by a particular error, and this also applies to speaker layout configurations, for eg., I could not live with the Grand Utopia's five drive units in a large arc.
This is a good snippet around measurements:
“Why do audiophiles do not like the sound of current oversampling DACs ?
Oversampling DACs are textbook correct, right ? So they should sound perfect, no ? Well ...
While it is true that oversampling DACs are textbook correct, if you make the wrong assumptions about the human hearing system, you may end up making mistakes, even if you do the math right !
Let me give you a simple example : it is generally assumed we hear the spectrum of sounds, but can't hear the phase.
Now try "binaural beats" on Google and listen for yourself. These clearly show the phase information IS sensed, AND remains present far inside the brain.
So maybe the spectrum-only approach to DAC design is not telling the whole story...
Traditional non-oversampling DACs from the past did not make any assumptions about hearing mechanisms, they just tried to replicate in analog what you fed them digitally as closely as possible...”
http://audio.starting-point-systems.com
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Traditional non-oversampling DACs from the past did not make any assumptions about hearing mechanisms, they just tried to replicate in analog what you fed them digitally as closely as possible...”
http://audio.starting-point-systems.com
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hence the popularity of NOS Dacs, and not just from the past :)
Here is an article that's well worth a read if you have time.
http://sw1xad.co.uk/technology_post/delta-sigma-vs-non-oversampling-r2r-dac-designs/
Hence the popularity of NOS Dacs.
Here is an article that's well worth a read if you have time.
http://sw1xad.co.uk/technology_post/delta-sigma-vs-non-oversampling-r2r-dac-designs/
I'd be wary of taking any manufacturer's blurb as gospel. NOS DACs sound different because they introduce distortion, not because they reduce 'timing errors'. Distortion can make the sound more appealing, as we see with vinyl. It's a different way of doing things which some people will prefer but claiming it is superior or more accurate is to go too far.
I'd be wary of taking any manufacturer's blurb as gospel. NOS DACs sound different because they introduce distortion, not because they reduce 'timing errors'. Distortion can make the sound more appealing, as we see with vinyl. It's a different way of doing things which some people will prefer but claiming it is superior or more accurate is to go too far.
Let's have a look at the distortion measurements of my NOS DAC:
Harmonic Distortion:
0.002% @ 1kHz, 50% full scale (-6dBFS)
0.012% @ 1kHz, 10% full scale (-20dBFS)
Intermodulation Distortion (CCIR):
0.009%
What you are describing is human beings breaking rules of logic and argument either to deliberately deceive others, or, and this is often the case, to deceive themselves in an attempt to alleviate their own internal conflict, and in so doing provide themselves with an internal comfort zone.
That last bit is spot on, as is this:
People chat themselves up all the time, and if a few victims are also caught up in this self created BS, well, that may well provide them with further support for their illusions.
...and *that* is where a big problem exists on forums.
I've also noticed that it's the scientifically-minded fraternity (and certain EEs amongst them) who are generally most guilty of that behaviour, especially the cognitive dissonance you describe in your first paragraph, and unfortunately it leads to the gullible following bad (fundamentally biased) advice from someone that they consider is an expert.
I do not know what you mean by "adopting a purely objective outlook in audio".
Someone who forms their opinions on hi-fi, solely based on measurements, who assembles their system using test equipment, rather than their ears, who believes that all equipment is sonically 'transparent', if the measurements dictate so, who will shun using anything that they think sounds great, if it doesn't measure well, or if what they're hearing doesn't conform to established scientific facts, in which case it will be automatically dismissed as imagined. And who's whole audio raison d'etre is governed by the laws of physics, which they serve like a humble disciple. I could go on...
Now, normal people reading that might be thinking to themselves 'Who the hell are these weirdos?' Well, I can assure you they exist, as unfortunately I've encountered, and crossed swords, with plenty of them over the years!
And they do a great disservice to the furthering of any useful knowledge, simply because they're more interested in portraying themselves as 'experts', in order to massage their egos, scoring points against those whose opinions they dislike, and seek to demean or ridicule, and protecting their scientific belief system from having its fallacies exposed, which of course causes them great distress [see cognitive dissonance, as mentioned earlier].
Those types will never be welcome on AoS - and if they join, they rarely last long, because eventually they get exposed for what they are...
Marco.
I was recently given a book on the psychology of certain personality types - those who are much more able to cope with and deal with the tension from unresolved issues, and it is very enlightening.
The types you list Marco could well fall into the category that is unable to deal with this tension. We all would like life 'watertight and shipshape', but it is not so, and the sooner we come to terms with its variability and the fickle nature of existence, the better we will be at dealing with its issues.
Of course the internal 'comfort zone', is an attempt at resolving things to a neat and complete understanding, but it is based on illusion, and hence under the constant threat from reality propounders.
"Someone who forms their opinions on hi-fi, solely based on measurements, who assembles their system using test equipment, rather than their ears, who believes that all equipment is sonically 'transparent', if the measurements dictate so, who will shun using anything that they think sounds great, if it doesn't measure well, or if what they're hearing doesn't conform to established scientific facts, in which case it will be automatically dismissed as imagined. And who's whole audio raison d'etre is governed by the laws of physics, which they serve like a humble disciple. I could go on..."
I have had enormous fights with academics who are of such an arrogant (self) persuasion, that they are really very aggressive, and want to punish anyone who has the balls to oppose their views, even giving them poor marks for their stance, and this could well describe such people.
"and protecting their scientific belief system from having its fallacies exposed,"
By definition this belief system is not scientific.
The real problem is that they are actually breaking the rules of science, and if they were to see that, it is possible that their whole personality could collapse. Science requires modesty and humility, and a burning self sacrificing desire to seek truth.
This is a good snippet around measurements:
“Why do audiophiles do not like the sound of current oversampling DACs ?
Oversampling DACs are textbook correct, right ? So they should sound perfect, no ? Well ...
While it is true that oversampling DACs are textbook correct, if you make the wrong assumptions about the human hearing system, you may end up making mistakes, even if you do the math right !
Whilst leaving aside the debatable veracity of that statement, in the context in which you're applying it (although I'm on your side there), for me, it is undoubtedly a truism, in terms of both the designing of audio equipment as a whole, and the perception of what ultimately matters when said equipment is listened to by a human being.
And in that respect, the penny should be dropping by now that there is a large enough body of user evidence, amassed over many years, to suggest that maths and measurements only takes us so far, simply because if we take your example above and add it to (justified) claims of vinyl and R2R tape being preferred to CD, valves to transistors, 'obsolete' loudspeaker technology to the current variety, analogue radio to digital, etc - with each example of older technology measuring worse than its modern counterpart, yet STILL sounding better to many people, then it should be patently clear that we hear things in a way that we're currently unable to measure.
And given that's the case, then we have to question the true efficacy of the measurements being taken to produce the equipment we're listening to, as I don't believe for one second that in every instance above, older technology was preferred simply due to users being seduced by euphonic distortions or nostalgia. Something more fundamental is happening, and whatever that is needs properly investigated, if we're ever to make *genuine* advances, WHERE IT MATTERS MOST, in the field of audio.
Marco.
Dennis, I've just read your last post which is *so* true it's unreal, and lives up to your title of 'Captain Insightful'. I may well even add it to the section containing Our Ethos!
Anyway, I'll comment later, as I just need to do a few things first :cool:
Marco.
Dave gilmour is a very average guitar player
I should be so average.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
if you were given a lot of paper, that had only the measurements of unnamed equipment, and you were to decide which components you wanted from this information only, to build a system, the only conclusion you could make in advance is that it would all be compatible. You would have no foggy notion what it would sound like.
And if you were to construct three separate systems that all had the exact same measurements, exactly the same on paper, there is no doubt that all three would have distinctly different sounds, there is almost no chance they would all sound just alike.
But, if we built a system that the numbers did not match well, poor impedance mismatch, wrong wattage for the speakers chosen, wrong gain and loading for your cartridge, you could very well have a huge mess! That may melt down soon after you turn it on. So measurements have their place, to be sure we aren’t wiring up a bomb, but it can in no way clue us into how a system will sound. I’ve heard reviewers look at measurements and make claims that this wide freq. response will result in good soundstaging, or the slew rate indicated good bass response, which amounts to a guess at best. Is that deep soundstaging or wide? Good bass or real slam? They have no idea. Once they see and hear a piece of gear, then they suddenly claim that they predicted its behavior, hind sight is 20/20.
And in the end, who really wants to live in a world of Audio where everything sounds exactly the same, and all is predicable?
Russell
With regard to amps, I would sooner see instantaneous current delivery measurements over THD measurements. People listen to real music with dynamic peaks, not sine waves.
And in the end, who really wants to live in a world of Audio where everything sounds exactly the same, and all is predicable?
Oh, you'd be surprised, Russell! The type of folk I've referred to, and Dennis has just mentioned, would love it if everything in LIFE, not just hi-fi, was consistent and predictable, 'black or white', governed by the laws which make up their belief system, simply because they have an innate fear of uncertainty.
It's a primitive form of reductionism, and makes life (and hi-fi) as bland as they are! ;)
Marco.
if you were given a lot of paper, that had only the measurements of unnamed equipment, and you were to decide which components you wanted from this information only, to build a system, the only conclusion you could make in advance is that it would all be compatible. You would have no foggy notion what it would sound like.
And if you were to construct three separate systems that all had the exact same measurements, exactly the same on paper, there is no doubt that all three would have distinctly different sounds, there is almost no chance they would all sound just alike.
But, if we built a system that the numbers did not match well, poor impedance mismatch, wrong wattage for the speakers chosen, wrong gain and loading for your cartridge, you could very well have a huge mess! That may melt down soon after you turn it on. So measurements have their place, to be sure we aren’t wiring up a bomb, but it can in no way clue us into how a system will sound. I’ve heard reviewers look at measurements and make claims that this wide freq. response will result in good soundstaging, or the slew rate indicated good bass response, which amounts to a guess at best. Is that deep soundstaging or wide? Good bass or real slam? They have no idea. Once they see and hear a piece of gear, then they suddenly claim that they predicted its behavior, hind sight is 20/20.
And in the end, who really wants to live in a world of Audio where everything sounds exactly the same, and all is predicable?
Russell
Good post Russell!
With regard to amps, I would sooner see instantaneous current delivery measurements over THD measurements. People listen to real music with dynamic peaks, not sine waves.
I’ll agree with that. And a good Slew Rate can tell us a few things. Wattage ratings are nearly worthless. I replaced a 450 watt Class D amp with a 300 watt Class A amp, and the later seems 4 times the size of the first. What’s up with that?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
jandl100
05-12-2017, 16:50
It's all about the power supply, I think.
I had a class D Crown 300 or so watter - an easy one handed lift :scratch: - it was actually a bit of a wimp soundwise.
“Heavy is good, heavy is reliable.” :P
- Boris the Blade
I was recently given a book on the psychology of certain personality types - those who are much more able to cope with and deal with the tension from unresolved issues, and it is very enlightening.
"Tension from unresolved issues".
That's exactly it Dennis, and like you say, it all comes down to personality types, in terms of how extreme that tension is, and how it's dealt with. I also believe, linked with that, especially in those who exhibit high degrees of such tension, is a 'fear of uncertainty', and the desire to pigeonhole everything into 'neatly-resolved boxes', so that rigidly held opinions, remain so, thus are shielded from scrutiny.
Uncertainty is uncomfortable and disconcerting for these people. And I see that behaviour all the time in diehard 'objectivists', particularly those from an engineering background who qualify as such. They tend to have very rigidly-held (read as immovable) opinions, together with an arrogance and closed-mindedness that does a gross disservice to scientific learning. In my experience, true scientists do not possess those traits.
The types you list Marco could well fall into the category that is unable to deal with this tension. We all would like life 'watertight and shipshape', but it is not so, and the sooner we come to terms with its variability and the fickle nature of existence, the better we will be at dealing with its issues.
Absolutely, and that's what these folk need to learn, and to embrace uncertainty, see it as a possible learning curve, and therefore a good thing. However, that's the problem with many of them, as they don't seem to think that they have anything new to learn! Apparently, they know it all already... :rolleyes:
Of course the internal 'comfort zone', is an attempt at resolving things to a neat and complete understanding, but it is based on illusion, and hence under the constant threat from reality propounders.
Hence my earlier remark about pigeonholing things into "neatly-resolved boxes". Personally, I think it's healthy for your view of reality to be occasionally questioned and exposed to scrutiny, as it will be skewed by natural bias, thus often different to the actuality, simply because we rarely see ourselves as we *really* are...
I have had enormous fights with academics who are of such an arrogant (self) persuasion, that they are really very aggressive, and want to punish anyone who has the balls to oppose their views, even giving them poor marks for their stance, and this could well describe such people.
Haha... Me too!! Especially on forums....
It's those types of people I simply cannot get on with, as their (often unjustified) arrogance grinds my gears like you wouldn't believe. It's not just their arrogance though, but the often fragile ego attached to it, along with a goodly dose of intransigence, combining to produce a heady cocktail of obnoxiousness, which is completely insufferable!!
I think the problem is often academics being wannabe scientists, but not having the ability to hold the title, so instead they create the illusion of one, which they then portray to the outside world, in order to satisfy that frustration! And their ego is huge, in order to make up for their limited talent, but fragile too, because deep down they know it's unjustified, and so needs continual 'stroking'.
"and protecting their scientific belief system from having its fallacies exposed,"
By definition this belief system is not scientific.
Indeed, but they think it is, although as you say, quite the opposite is true. Science is not a closed-minded, rigid entity; it's an innately inquisitive, ever-evolving (and learning) one.
The real problem is that they are actually breaking the rules of science, and if they were to see that, it is possible that their whole personality could collapse. Science requires modesty and humility, and a burning self sacrificing desire to seek truth.
...which is why they provide themselves with an internal comfort zone, to prevent that conflict. How you've defined it above is *exactly* the true nature of science, and how real scientists behave, not the wannabes, posing as academics.
Marco.
paulf-2007
06-12-2017, 17:44
Load of nutters
Short and to the point, Paul! :lol:
Marco.
paulf-2007
06-12-2017, 19:27
Short and to the point, Paul! :lol:
Marco.
Yeah, sitting on the fence again.
To me the crucial point is the ability to live with the tensions of unresolved factors, described so well in the book "The Dynamics of Creation" by Antony Storr.
An inability to do this often results in people creating the defence mechanisms outlined above, but these then fall into the trap of 'If at first we do deceive, oh what a tangled web we weave', and it then can become very complexed.
The best academics and especially scientists are often extremely humble and self effacing, quite unlike the mediocres that abound, and I hear now from several sources that universities have been 'taken over' by a liberal elite whose opinions you oppose at your own risk.
The best academics and especially scientists are often extremely humble and self effacing, quite unlike the mediocres that abound, and I hear now from several sources that universities have been 'taken over' by a liberal elite whose opinions you oppose at your own risk.
...perhaps you're not very liberal in your views :)
To me the crucial point is the ability to live with the tensions of unresolved factors, described so well in the book "The Dynamics of Creation" by Antony Storr.
I agree. Don't know about you, but I'm completely relaxed about "unresolved factors". I've always been the type who cares more about the end result, than the journey getting there! Or who pointlessly frets over the 'whys and wherefores'. Life's too short.
I must check out the book in question.
The best academics and especially scientists are often extremely humble and self effacing, quite unlike the mediocres that abound...
Indeed, and exactly my experience, too. You know what they say though, the bigger the ego, the smaller the talent... And some of the most talented people are also the most humble.
I'll always oppose anyone's opinion I disagree with. I don't care who they are!
Marco.
, and I hear now from several sources that universities have been 'taken over' by a liberal elite whose opinions you oppose at your own risk.
Liberal maybe. Elite? Nah. Unless that's another word they have changed the definition of recently.
Anyway, what's the best system you've heard?
The best venues I’ve heard are The Albert Hall and Manchester Cathedral. Lovely acoustics, big hall reverb built in.
I think that my stance is fairly liberal, whatever that means, and I am open to criticism.
Martins point about words is very relevant, and surely we must remain open to criticism for all our goods. It is they who think they are elite, I think they are tyrannical bullies, and actually not very liberal in the sense of encompassing a wide range of views tolerantly.
Although off thread, it is often necessary to deal with and clarify peripheral factors, so that they do not blur the thread being discussed.
It is they who think they are elite, I think they are tyrannical bullies, and actually not very liberal in the sense of encompassing a wide range of views tolerantly.
Indeed, and tolerance is the key, and why AoS is strictly moderated on that basis. Some folk have a very over-inflated opinion of themselves and their abilities, which often needs bringing back down to reality ;)
Marco.
paulf-2007
07-12-2017, 11:59
And on that note, WHAT IS THE BEST SYSTEM YOU HAVE HEARD!
wee tee cee
07-12-2017, 13:13
Been to Ronnie Scotts a couple of times to see Cecile mc loran salvant......me and my good lady were in the pews but it sounded wonderfull.
Pretty good burger and chips washed down with copious amounts of vino may also have enhanced my lug holes.
And on that note, WHAT IS THE BEST SYSTEM YOU HAVE HEARD!
Best treble I have heard is from STAX headphones, best bass from massive soundsystems at gigs and festivals.
walpurgis
07-12-2017, 22:48
The most potent bass I ever heard from non-professional speakers, was at the Penta Audio Fair about thirty years ago. It was a huge pair of Cerwin Vega 15T brutes that were shaking the whole floor even with the demo room door closed. The bass output was monstrous!
Just read this article on Ms. Salvant before I read this post:
https://www.ft.com/content/4c79ebbc-da19-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482
Seems like i need to check this out.
walpurgis
07-12-2017, 22:59
Just read this article on Ms. Salvant before I read this post:
https://www.ft.com/content/4c79ebbc-da19-11e7-a039-c64b1c09b482
Seems like i need to check this out.
That's for subscribed members.
Best treble I have heard is from STAX headphones, best bass from massive soundsystems at gigs and festivals.
For example the Martin Audio MLA system. No home system will get close.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171208/bacb0507d7ca2570332724d5de79f34c.jpg
Lol... What's that meant to be? It looks like it's made of Lego!
Marco.
Lol... What's that meant to be? It looks like it's made of Lego!
Marco.
Lol yeah! Interesting article about them here:
http://www.audioxpress.com/news/Martin-Audio-s-MLA-speakers-deliver-Glastonbury-s-highest-permitted-sound-levels-yet
http://www.audioxpress.com/assets/upload/images/Glastonbury%202014%20MLA%20sideWeb.jpg
wee tee cee
08-12-2017, 10:52
Album- woman child
Track-I didnt know what time it was.
Ronnie Scott's went completely silent-what a beautiful voice and humble person.
I hope she gets the recognition she deserves.
For example the Martin Audio MLA system. No home system will get close.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171208/bacb0507d7ca2570332724d5de79f34c.jpg
Looks like a half-built Lego 'Death Star' that someone has spilt a bag of skittles over.
I don't think it is reasonable to compare huge PA systems like that with domestic hi fi. I've a heard a couple of small rigs I could probably live with domestically, though. It is still just a pair of speakers and an amp at the end of the day, why would it be so different?
Sure it's not the best system I've heard, but like others, the one that left the biggest impression was the first time I heard real hifi (whatever that means): my brother's system in about 1989/90 was a Roksan Xerxes with RB300/Roksan Corus, Naim Nait 2 and Mission 780 Argonauts.
https://specialistdivision.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/naim-nait-2.jpg?w=1420
We were listening to this
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/5151P9RX46L.jpg
...and it blew me away. Never heard anything like it before and I've been kinda trying to recapture that impression ever since.
The Xerxes has long gone (plinth sag), but I'm still using those Mission speakers, he's just lent me the Naim amp and I'm listening to the Seeds of Love now - the very same LP! Dare I try the amp or am I better preserving the memory of the impression it left..?
paulf-2007
09-12-2017, 18:19
What impressed you then may not now, I would think that's the same for many people.
Impressions are transient and fluctuating, as is our mental context from which we perceive.
Impressions don’t last, and do not contribute to the one true measurement in HiFi, which is: long term listening enjoyment.
What impressed you then may not now, I would think that's the same for many people.
Indeed, unless your sonic standards (and benchmark from which to judge them) has remained stagnant since! ;)
However, as an aside, I'm also a great believer in the reason why things sounded good 'back in the day', was because the mains wasn't as polluted then, with RFI, etc, as it is now - and that that has a significant bearing on matters, particularly for those of us trying to recreate 'that sound', which so impressed us all those years ago with certain kit, and failing miserably, no matter how much we try...
Marco.
spendorman
10-12-2017, 08:39
I much respected the opinion about the sound of a Hi-Fi from my late friend who was a musician, and an owner of good equipment. His main system included Quad 405-2, 44, FM4 and ESL63's. His second system included Quad 33/303/ FM3 and Chartwell LS3/5A's. My own equipment includes all the above, but we were listening to other components that I have, namely Technics SU-V303 amplifier and Hi Fi News design Daline speakers that use KEF B110, KEF T15 and Coles 4001G in a large transmission line type cabinet. My friend reckoned that this was the best sound that he had ever heard. The main shortfall of the speakers is that they would not produce a disco type level, but were fine for normal listening.
Much of our learning is about our own mistakes in perception.
paulf-2007
10-12-2017, 10:10
Indeed, unless your sonic standards (and benchmark from which to judge them) has remained stagnant since! ;)
However, as an aside, I'm also a great believer in the reason why things sounded good 'back in the day', was because the mains wasn't as polluted then, with RFI, etc, as it is now - and that that has a significant bearing on matters, particularly for those of us trying to recreate 'that sound', which so impressed us all those years ago with certain kit, and failing miserably, no matter how much we try...
Marco.polluted mains....I blame global warming :)
polluted mains....I blame global warming :)
I think we just make our memories rosier with time. I can still recall what my first system sounded like - I think. It couldn't do the cymbals properly on Wishbone Ash 'Argus'. I only found that out when I upgraded the deck and heard what they were supposed to sound like.
The other factor is youth. Or our present lack of it. Nothing sounds as good or tastes as good as it did when the world was young.
walpurgis
10-12-2017, 10:25
My first 'stereo' did nothing well. It couldn't do loud or bass or treble, but I was none the wiser. I knew it was crap, but couldn't figure out why. Then I heard 'proper' Hi-Fi at a mate's place and the disease struck! I had to get something better!!
polluted mains....I blame global warming :)
No, I blame mobile phones, computers, routers and all the other 'shit', nowadays radiating RFI, household appliances, TVs and Sky boxes, fitted with cheapo SMPS units, chucking noise into the mains supply. Can you imagine how much cleaner the mains was, say in the 70s, when most of that stuff didn't exist...?
We're battling a whole load of noise now, using 'fancy' cables, mains leads, regenerators, etc, trying to get our systems to sound good, which wasn't the case before, simply because that level of noise didn't exist.
Marco.
The other factor is youth. Or our present lack of it. Nothing sounds as good or tastes as good as it did when the world was young.
I know where you're coming from, and to a certain extent agree, but personally I'm having as much of a ball now, in almost every way, as I've ever had! :cool:
Marco.
No, I blame mobile phones, routers and all the other 'shit', nowadays radiating RFI, and household appliances fitted with cheapo SMPS units, chucking noise into the mains supply. Can you imagine how much cleaner the mains was, say in the 70s, when all that stuff didn't exist?
Marco.
Whether that has any effect on sound quality is highly debatable, though. That our recall of things we experienced is inaccurate, or coloured, on the other hand, is pretty much indisputable. I know which way I'd bet.
I suppose it could be a little of both.
I think it is some of both, as I can assure you that 'dirty mains' is a major problem for hi-fi systems, and that the steps I've taken in many ways to eradicate it, have been very effective (as I've heard the difference so many times).
I can say with some certainty that it's a REAL problem, no matter how much you'd prefer it not to be, and getting worse all the time! ;)
Marco.
Whether that has any effect on sound quality is highly debatable, though.
No debate here!
Once had a system where I noticed the sound quality used to significantly degrade (and the amps used to omit an audible hum). After a few days of cable changing and head scratching, I noticed it was happening at night and then worked out it happened exactly as the street lights were switched on and stopped again when they went off in the morning. I noticed there was a flickering and buzzing street light about 50m from my flat at the time, so called the local council to report it. Took them about a week, but I never had the problem again. It was a flat in an old house and i doubt the wiring was very modern, but street lights..!
I'm convinced that Marco is right (about this at least ;)). As people have already said elsewhere on AoS, the listening room has a significant impact on how a system sounds, but so does the ambient noise, vibration and "mains polution". It's why a system so often sounds best at 3.00am.
I'm convinced that Marco is right (about this at least ;)). As people have already said elsewhere on AoS, the listening room has a significant impact on how a system sounds, but so does the ambient noise, vibration and "mains polution". It's why a system so often sounds best at 3.00am.
Indeed - and for ALL those reasons listed. And the cumulative effect is significant! :)
Marco.
paulf-2007
10-12-2017, 12:14
I think we just make our memories rosier with time. I can still recall what my first system sounded like - I think. It couldn't do the cymbals properly on Wishbone Ash 'Argus'. I only found that out when I upgraded the deck and heard what they were supposed to sound like.
The other factor is youth. Or our present lack of it. Nothing sounds as good or tastes as good as it did when the world was young.
Great album argus, one of my favs, should look for a good copy, my old teenage one is scratched like most from the drinking era.
Ammonite Audio
10-12-2017, 14:18
Being relatively new to hifi I haven't heard alot that's out there and mostly go by the opinions of others on what to buy such as reviewers and hifi veterans such as yourselfs and so I'm curious what is the best systems you've heard?
Quite recently I heard a very expensive system consisting of a stack of top end Soulution gear, feeding Maxonic TW1100 field coil speakers. Those speakers are curious looking things, very shiny and even ugly to my eyes, but what a sound! My host played an old DG recording of David Oistrakh which I have at home and am therefore familiar with; and in a moment I was utterly captivated. Never before have I heard such a natural sound, such purity of tone, such easy breathing musicality. Some of that is of course down to the (very expensive) electronics, but those speakers stole my heart. I'd seen pictures of them before and never realised that a big, old fashioned driver with a rectangular plastic horn stuck in the middle, and a fireguard attached to the front, could sound so sublime. Such expensive equipment is always difficult to justify, but maybe one day when my ship comes in ......
https://www.hifiengine.com/images/model/maxonic_tw1100_3-way_loudspeaker_system.jpg
The feet on those speakers took me back nearly 50 years to the days of Bleep and Booster
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/92/1a/fc/921afc8c6f527898433978510ca3d8ae--blue-peter-peter-otoole.jpg
RobbieGong
10-12-2017, 14:36
Quite recently I heard a very expensive system consisting of a stack of top end Soulution gear, feeding Maxonic TW1100 field coil speakers. Those speakers are curious looking things, very shiny and even ugly to my eyes, but what a sound! My host played an old DG recording of David Oistrakh which I have at home and am therefore familiar with; and in a moment I was utterly captivated. Never before have I heard such a natural sound, such purity of tone, such easy breathing musicality. Some of that is of course down to the (very expensive) electronics, but those speakers stole my heart. I'd seen pictures of them before and never realised that a big, old fashioned driver with a rectangular plastic horn stuck in the middle, and a fireguard attached to the front, could sound so sublime. Such expensive equipment is always difficult to justify, but maybe one day when my ship comes in ......
https://www.hifiengine.com/images/model/maxonic_tw1100_3-way_loudspeaker_system.jpg
The feet on those speakers took me back nearly 50 years to the days of Bleep and Booster
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/92/1a/fc/921afc8c6f527898433978510ca3d8ae--blue-peter-peter-otoole.jpg
Mad cute :)
For me FM is often better at the weekends, especially Sundays.
Quite recently I heard a very expensive system consisting of a stack of top end Soulution gear, feeding Maxonic TW1100 field coil speakers. Those speakers are curious looking things, very shiny and even ugly to my eyes, but what a sound! My host played an old DG recording of David Oistrakh which I have at home and am therefore familiar with; and in a moment I was utterly captivated. Never before have I heard such a natural sound, such purity of tone, such easy breathing musicality. Some of that is of course down to the (very expensive) electronics, but those speakers stole my heart. I'd seen pictures of them before and never realised that a big, old fashioned driver with a rectangular plastic horn stuck in the middle, and a fireguard attached to the front, could sound so sublime. Such expensive equipment is always difficult to justify, but maybe one day when my ship comes in ......
https://www.hifiengine.com/images/model/maxonic_tw1100_3-way_loudspeaker_system.jpg
The feet on those speakers took me back nearly 50 years to the days of Bleep and Booster
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/92/1a/fc/921afc8c6f527898433978510ca3d8ae--blue-peter-peter-otoole.jpg
Greetings,
Nice to see that some people go back to the old technology. There is nothing better than a properly designed field coil based acoustics.
As with all active devices or components (whether field coil drivers or active I/V or similar), the sound is heavily dependent on the power supplies.
S
paulf-2007
11-12-2017, 18:06
The voxativ field coils sounded better with 12v car batteries than voxativ's own power supplies
The voxativ field coils sounded better with 12v car batteries than voxativ's own power supplies
That doesn't surprise me in the least. Why should someone replace a source of a steady constant magnetic field, i.e. a permanent magnet, with a field coil powered by an AC derived power source, and expect it to sound better?
Can someone explain this to me?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.