What does Flat earth mean to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Hi Dimitri,

Just out of interest, what DACs have you compared the Beresford to? Have you heard it outperform something significantly more expensive?

I ask because it's always useful to know what someone's current benchmark has been judged against :)

Marco.

---

The Caiman did not "outperformed significantly" more expensive dacs imho. But it does come to the same quality as many dacs around £1000 (my Northstar192, for instance) which is already a huge performance. Other comparable (expensive) dacs include 3DLab, Benchmark, Lavry, YBA and Stello.

I was interested mainly in comparing it to under £500-dacs (I won't give you the list of the number of dacs I listened under this price : it is a long list...). At this price range, it really outperforms a great number of them.

As far as I am concerned, there used to be a "gap" separating good-sounding dacs from the others : it used to be at around £1500 a few years ago.
This "gap" is actually at around £400 and keeps going down... You can find very well-made (with discrete output stages and great power sections) dacs at this price.
Good news for our pocket ! :)

Cheers, Dimitri. Thanks for the info. It's always useful when someone expands on their experiences. I'm sure that other Caiman users will be able to relate to that :)

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Cheers, Dimitri. Thanks for the info. It's always useful when someone expands on their experiences. I'm sure that other Caiman users will be able to relate to that :)

Marco.

---

Thanks Marco. :)
I guess everyone has a specialty in this hobby : some know a lot about turntables, amps, arms, cables or speakers. Mine is listening to D/A converters... :eyebrows:

All this came about because a certain company only had one product to sell- a turntable, so naturally, they'd want you to spend more on it! It allowed them to be imaginative with their price structure. The principle that they espoused is obviously an understandable one......up to a point, & fits well with the idea of an evolving system, constantly being upgraded. Especially useful if later down the line you want to start selling other types of components......

However, price differences do not equal a measurement of quality.
And some folk want to make a single purchase & not be locked into a cycle of upgrades.

It surely should be a matter of balancing suitable combinations rather than an exercise in cost accounting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Hi Alfie,



What you say is 100% correct. I've also no doubt that the system you heard was excellent :)

As is usual with these things; the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. Absolutist views one way or the other, in terms of source first or speakers first (or whatever first) are unlikely to produce the best result, so the answer is to seek a balanced approach.

Quite simply, there is no universal 'best way' of building a system!

However, in saying that, if the speaker/room interaction is wrong (and I mean 'wrong' from an acoustic point of view due to the shape and/or structure of the room) then you're f*cked no matter what's going on further down the chain...

In those circumstances, one needs to work backwards (perhaps also try some room treatments); or preferably put the system in a better room (or move house)! ;)

Marco.

---

Hi Marco,

A balanced approach is what I was getting at! :) The system should be built as an whole, quite difficult though unless you've got lots of money! Most of us upgrade 1 item at a time & mistakes are easy to make along the way!

Some 20+ years ago a good 'FE' friend of mine, using the methodology of the time spent the lions share of his budget on an LP12 & whichever Linn arm it was. The rest of his budget was spent on cart, then amp, then speakers getting cheaper down the chain. TBH it sounded rather poor & I loved the LP12 at the time but the amp/speakers just couldn't do it justice! I'd built my system around my Systemdek III but with a more equal share of the budget to the amp/speakers! My good friend was quite pissed off with the results we were getting!

Now though, I'm starting to warm to the idea of building a balanced system back from the speakers. IMO this allows any upgrade further up the chain to be heard to better effect!

I heard the above mentioned 'expensive' system at Definitive Audio (His statement horns are stunning!) whilst trying out the OBX-R2 crossover which I intend to add to my OBX-R soon. Then amps to suit (probably work out expensive as this little KEL impresses me more & more) then I'll look towards my souces, they're not to shabby, they should be good enough for now to help with the selection of amps even better when the DP-6000 is plinthed! :)

A balanced synergistic system is my goal but there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat ;)

It's just occurred to me another fundamental FE ideal over the more traditional approach to equipment choice...

Alan Shaw of Harbeth is a polite, talented and extremely driven speaker designer, with his roots totally in the measurement led and subjectively confirmed way of doing things (he does listen VERY carefully, as anyone who's heard his products should be able to testify). There have been occasional comments about 40.1 owners with bass "problems" and Alan is adamant that the rooms are at fault...

What I'm trying to say is that traditional ways of doing it are to buy a speaker that is "correct" and tailor the room and positioning to make it work best (these problems when analysed were room-modes being set off by the extended bass of the 40.1 at one main bass frequency plus harmonics). The FE way (and Richard Dunn's I think) has been to accept that domestic rooms are often rubbish for acoustics and to tailor the speaker choice around the room so that the two work together as well as possible.

I found from experience that for pro use, the former approach is the best way, a truthful speaker in a sorted room being just right for monitoring IMO. Domestically, I think either approach has a place to be honest, as many living rooms with other people using them are difficult to change round to properly accommodate the gear.

In older LP based systems, the source first approach is still relevant if not taken to extremes and this is still easily demonstrable I think, as a well fettled turntable/arm and cartridge will always improve a modest LP based system IMO. With a good cheapish CD player like a Rega Apollo (Planet in my times), I found you can take far more liberties as the CD player was very capable and covered its tracks so well...

Nice post, Dave. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DSJR

What I'm trying to say is that traditional ways of doing it are to buy a speaker that is "correct" and tailor the room and positioning to make it work best (these problems when analysed were room-modes being set off by the extended bass of the 40.1 at one main bass frequency plus harmonics). The FE way (and Richard Dunn's I think) has been to accept that domestic rooms are often rubbish for acoustics and to tailor the speaker choice around the room so that the two work together as well as possible.

---

That would be the way I would do it. Though the speaker picked would be the very best that will work in the particular room (The other approach is to risky...I have seen way to many failures of this approach)

Quote:

---

I found from experience that for pro use, the former approach is the best way, a truthful speaker in a sorted room being just right for monitoring IMO. Domestically, I think either approach has a place to be honest, as many living rooms with other people using them are difficult to change round to properly accommodate the gear.

---

Indeed both approaches can have there place, but the later is the better imho.

Quote:

---

In older LP based systems, the source first approach is still relevant if not taken to extremes and this is still easily demonstrable I think, as a well fettled turntable/arm and cartridge will always improve a modest LP based system IMO. With a good cheapish CD player like a Rega Apollo (Planet in my times), I found you can take far more liberties as the CD player was very capable and covered its tracks so well...

---

Sorry I don't agree with you on that point, in regard to digital. Digital front ends do show improvements as you go up the price ladder (That has, and is my experience) as do TT and other front ends. There is the odd item that hits above its price in performance, but those are rare imho, and that particular item may not sit well in your system. Perhaps the Rega is one such, but I think it would be a risky venture to assume any digital item will sit well. You must always try these items out, never make assumptions in order...TO GET A BALANCED SYSTEM imho.


Regards D S D L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Toy

The issue is one of the missus cramming the room with useless bits of furniture (if you gave her the Albert Hall she'd do exactly the same) and then tell you there's no room for those bloody great big 'orrible monstrosities.

---

I thought this forum was supposed to promote stereos, not silly stereotypes - please, Steve - it doesn't give credence to when you have something sensible to say, IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex_UK

I thought this forum was supposed to promote steros, not silly stereotypes - please, Steve - it doesn't give credence to when you have something sensible to say, IMHO

---

Like anywhere else is your room not dominated by stereo equipment you not worthy, thing is hi-fi are actually unimportant in the real house world.