Jump to content

ODS123

Regulars
  • Posts

    883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ODS123

  1. Not sure how Feng Shui it is.. Indeed, I'm not sure I'll ever understand exactly what it means.  But I'll make a pitch for making your system as visually appealing to your SO as absolutely possible.  

     

    By  making my system look nice and tidy - no tangle of cords everywhere, no open rack of components, etc. - my lovely wife has always encouraged me to have the system in our family room. Consequently, the whole family hears what I'm listening to, and I hear what they cue up (all CD's ripped into a music server, and Roon/Tidal the past few years).  Not to be too precious about it, but it really has helped make our family close.  IMHO, music is best enjoyed as a shared experience.  When I see my kids put on their headphones, I'll ask what they're listening to, then encourage them to cue it up on the family system.  ..And I don't have headphones, so it's the main system or nothing.

     

    It's important to ALWAYS find something to like about what they're listening to.  You get nowhere criticizing what others - particularly your kids - like.

     

     

    Screenshot 2023-01-26 at 6.43.37 AM.jpg

    • Like 3
  2. On 9/21/2022 at 6:02 AM, John Warren said:

     

    At the risk of burdening you with finding another way to disagree with me, I shall agree with you. 

     

    So explain the popularity of Klipsch Heritage speakers despite the fact that their enclosures are relatively un-braced.   ...They sound as hollow as shoeboxes when you rap on them.  So why do they sound so good in spite of this??

  3. On 9/11/2022 at 12:55 AM, Toz said:

    First off, the guy is a car audio dealer and not specifically a high end audio person. Second, the test parameters are such that it has little bearing on how you would use two different amps in your own set up. How an amplifier drives a reactive load, one where the impedance curve moves around a lot, will vary from one amp to the next. The frequency  response of the amp/speaker combination will be different with different amps. He adjusts for this variation!

     

    The fact that he's a car audio dealer doesn't really enter into it.  If so, why?

     

    ..He allowed people to bring their own speakers!  

     

    He adjusted only for amps that did not have linear F/R.  ..Usually tube amps.  

     

    And he didn't expect 20/20 correct.  Rather he expected a % of correct ID's that ruled out chance.  

  4. 1 hour ago, jjptkd said:

     

     Hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion-- I do find it odd however you here preaching there is no audible difference between modern day amplifiers but according to your signature line you're sporting a $7k McIntosh integrated? Why not a $300 Yamaha? Do you just like "the look" or is it the prestige? It certainly can't be because it sounds any different or better right? 

     

    I like the look, feel, and history of the McIntosh brand.  But most importantly, I Iike that they continue to include Bass, Treble, and Mono switch with every pre-amp and integrated amp they sell.  But does it sound better when they are defeated or at neutral??  No....  not a bit.  

     

  5. 2 hours ago, Toz said:

    When you read entire test details you will find the clincher. That is that EQ is added to one amp to bring it's frequency response into a close match to the other.  In my mind this only tells us that if you adjust two amps to sounds the same, they will indeed sound the same.

     

    Why is that a "clincher" ?

     

    What amp these days would even need such an EQ adjustment to match another apart from the aforementioned (by me) boutiquey, low wattage tube amps??  

     

    Name me one modern day amp (or receiver) from companies like Yamaha, NAD, Mark Levinson, Arcam, McIntosh, Rotel, Crown, Onkyo, Anthem, Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, etc.. that doesn't claim an even frequency response in it's specifications?  You can't.  ..And yet people here routinely claim to hear differences b/w these various brands.

     

    And to KT88's question...  Forcing a low-power S/S amp to drive a 1-2 ohm speaker to 120db thereby causing it to go into thermal overload and shutdown is not evidence of audible differences b/w amplifiers.  ..What it IS is evidence of choosing the wrong amp for the application.

     

    Sorry guys...  No gotcha! here.  

     

     ..Hearing differences b/w modern day amps is illusory, IMHO.  

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
  6. 19 hours ago, KT88 said:

    And quite apart from that, what speakers were used? 

     

    Did you read the details??  I'm thinking you didn't...

     

    "if the listener requests, they can substitute whatever source, source material, amplifiers, speakers (even headphones), and listening environment they prefer, within stipulated practical limits. The source material must be commercially available music, not test signals."

     

    "Amplifier requirements
    The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier .
    The levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.
    All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off"

     

    Pretty amazing that NO ONE claimed the prize.  ..Heck, 2% THD is pretty liberal!  ..Humans hearing isn't nearly as sharp as audiophiles believe.  So my final comment to the OP (Nick?) is that 99.9% of how a system sounds is about speaker choice and room setup.  Buy a nicer amp if you wish, but don't expect the sound to change

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  7. My advice Pt 2 :)

     

    Regarding turntables.

     

    To me, vinyl is a great format b/c of the rich liner note content, the album art, lyrics printed on the sleeves, etc.. ..Even the hassle of advancing to a specific song, or flipping the album side contribute to making the format great because it encourages the listener to listen to the entirety of the album and thereby grasp the connectedness of the songs and (possibly) the theme of the album. 

     

    But does it sound better? No....  Vinyl is noisy, has limited dynamic range, high levels of wow and flutter (so you'll hear piano notes wander - particularly on belt-drive tables) and is very sensitive to vibration.  ..Can it sound great?  Yep!  ..But better? ..No.  unless you compare a remastered vinyl record to a poorly mixed original CD.  ..But then it's the remix that improved the sound, not the format.

     

    This isn't meant to discourage you from getting into vinyl. On the contrary.  Vinyl is great!  ..It's awesome to pour over a 50 year old album cover with it's artwork, liner notes, posters, concert pics, etc...  as you listen to the music.  ..Plus finding treasures at flea markets, neighbors basements, etc...  ..And it can sound great.  ...But not better.

    • Like 2
  8. On 9/5/2022 at 11:57 PM, nick89rs said:

    My question is is it criminal to push these amazing speakers with such an entry level amp? Can i see another jump in performance with a budget of maybe 2k?  where do i start and are there any recommendations?

     

    No, there is nothing wrong with it. ..In fact, so long as the amp is operating within it's design limits - which it almost certainly is - it is highly unlikely you would hear ANY improvement by moving to a pricier amp.

     

    My advice Nick:

     

    if you have a limited budget you should prioritize your spending around speakers, then room treatments...  Any modern day amp that isn't driven into audible distortion - which is unlikely to EVER happen given the high efficiency of your Khorns - is going to sound pretty much like the other.  The sole exception would be boutiquey low-wattage tube amps which are basically engineered to alter the sound.  Which really isn't a very audiophile-thing to do :)

     

    That said, there ARE reasons to spend more on an amp.  For example, better tactile build quality, appearance, features like tone controls, equalizer, mono switch, wattage meters, etc...  ..All of these things can be important, but don't spend more thinking the basic, unaltered signal (ie., no tone controls engaged) will somehow sound different.

     

    But don't take my word for it.  Read the following.  Years ago Richard Clark, an Audio professional, devised a $10,000 challenge whereby ANYONE who could reliably (defined as better than chance) distinguish one properly functioning amp from another would take home $10,000.  ..But they had to compare them while "Blinded" from knowing which amp was playing.  NO ONE took home the money.  And thousands of people tried, including audio reviewers and audio obsessives like those here on this forum.    Again, NO ONE took home the money.

     

    So spend more if you wish, just don't do it expecting better sound.  And though I don't know for sure, I'm pretty certain Paul W Klipsch himself would agree with this.

     

    https://www.stevemeadedesigns.com/board/topic/193850-richard-clark-10000-amplifier-challenge/

     

    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, RealMarkDeneen said:

     

    The devil is in the details: "properly designed and executed tone control circuit does not degrade the signal quality ...." That's the challenge. Engineers would spend a lot of time arguing first over, "just what should a useful tone control DO?" Is 20dB boost at 30 Hz, necessary? Is 3dB cut at 1kHz enough? What's the value of 10dB cut at 20kHz? Maybe a 10-band parametric EQ should be embedded into a preamp? In fact, is "tone control" a different entity from "equalization?"

     

    The number and quality of parts involved surely is an issue for cost and SQ. Scratchy pots, cheap capacitors, additional stages, certainly are parts of the decision. Extra stages absolutely 100% WILL alter the SQ. I doubt any audio engineer would argue against that.

     

    The system also presents issues. If bookshelf speakers are in use, isn't SOME bass-boost useful? In certain glassy rooms, or if using some peaky phono cartridges, isn't some treble cut useful? Also, no two producers agree on how to EQ and master recordings, so there is no consistency there to rely upon. 

     

    The last statement about the reasons TC were eliminated is a dubious opinion. A more likely reason is that engineers could not imagine a TC system that would be meaningful for "most" of their buyers. If you look at the older circuits, from say a PAS 3, I doubt many contemporary users would find it useful as all the cuts and boosts are centered at 1kHz. Possibly useful in 1968, but today? I think a good reason to leave them off might be that parametric equalizers are a better answer for people who like to fiddle the tone. Just guessing about what tone adjustments would be useful sounds like a deadly waste of time.

     

     

     

    I don’t think “guessing what tone adjustments would be useful“ is any more of a “deadly (?) waste of time” than, say,  decisions that go into a speakers crossover points, frequency cut-off, etc…. Besides, all McIntosh, Luxman, and Accuphase integrated amps that feature tone controls also have defeat switches.  This makes it easy for the listener - when they encounter an imperfectly recorded song - to decide for themselves if adjusting bass and/or treble improves the sound or makes it worse.   If the latter, then leave them zeroed or hit the defeat switch.

     

    The argument that the additional signal breaks needed for tone controls or even their defeat switches somehow deteriorates the signal is utterly ridiculous in my opinion. Take a look at a mixing board. Pretty much every audiophile approved recording from Steely Dan to Diana Krall to Norah Jones was produced using a mixing board with literally hundreds and hundreds of signal breaks required by the various pots, sliders, and switches.  Yet the music that comes out the other end of these things is thoroughly enjoyable.  …If every signal break deteriorated the sound then what would come out the other end of a mixing board would be unrecognizable. 
     

    Btw, I’ve had my McIntosh integrated for nearly 8 years and there is not one iota of scratchiness or noise in any of the switches.
     

  10. 54 minutes ago, Racer X said:

     

    I guess one could live without tone controls, balance, or mono switch, but why ?

     

    I roll my balance as often as my volume....


    That puts it perfectly and succinctly.   Why, when they do no harm, go without?

     

    DSP Room correction, room treatments etc. can all help with room induced imperfections….    But to correct a bad recording sometimes requires a turn to the left and other times a turn to the right of bass / treble.  None of the aforementioned remedies to room problems will correct that.

     

    As I look back over the years the audiophiles that most loved music had integrated amps with tone controls And usually with a much larger music library.  They would eagerly listen to a great but poorly recorded song (with judicious use of tone controls) while the purest audiophile would push that recording to the back of their library as they preferred to listen to only near perfect recordings, often of mediocre music

    • Like 2
  11. 6 hours ago, Rolox said:

    ... but how many of those recordings do we actually own? 

     

    I honestly can't tell if you're joking or not.  

     

    ..I have lot's of recordings that are too bright or the bass, when listening at near "live" levels, begins to shake my kitchen cupboards.  A small amount of treble/ bass adjustment in such cases enhances my enjoyment.  ..I don't get mired down with purist thinking.

     

    And remember I'm also referring to a Mono switch. ..I use that pretty often.  ..Lots of 50's and 60's recordings have very gimmicking stereo mixing.  ..Like the guitar entirely from one channel and the vocals from the others (e.g., some old Beatles tracks).  ..These songs are MUCH better sounding with the mono switch engaged.

     

    I agree wholeheartedly w/ Alan Harbeth.  The audio industry has gaslighted us into thinking tone controls are bad (eg., they damage the signal w/ add'l breaks; they change what the artist intended, etc..).  In truth, the " minimalism is better" argument is entirely self-serving to the industry.  To wit: It's much easier and cheaper to make an integrated amp that has just a volume control.  ..No thanks to that, imho.

    • Like 2
  12. 1 hour ago, Shakeydeal said:


    I tend to think of it as a nice band aid for people who haven’t addressed system synergy and room issues.

     

    I'll share a quote gleaned from another Forum.  This from Alan Shaw of Harbeth.  ..I'm betting PWK would say something similar

     

     "One of the greatest mysteries and acts of insanity in the audio business was the deletion of tone controls from hifi amplifiers from about the 1980s with some utterly discreditable mumbo jumbo that 'tone controls are no part of a hifi system'. I can categorically assure you that a properly designed and executed tone control circuit does not degrade the signal quality and never has done... Tone controls were deleted from hifi amps as a marketing gimmick to attract a new 'minimalist' consumer away from amps laden with buttons and controls."
     

    (thank you Keiron99 on Steve Hoffman forum)

    • Like 3
  13. I'm sure it's beautifully made, hence a fair amount of pride-of-ownership will accrue to all who own one.  But sound better?

     

    And seriously? $5K for an integrated that doesn't even have a balance control??  ..Personally, given your budget I'd find a Mac dealer (a sister company to AR, I believe) and buy one of their integrated amps.  ..They all have balance controls, tone controls, and a mono switch - common sense features that make listening to all kinds of music of varying recording quality more enjoyable.  

     

    Or an Accuphase or Luxman as they also have these sensible features.

     

    • Like 2
  14. Have an auto window tinting company come and tint the offending window.  ..If you still notice a color change - likely a small amount, if any -  then swap the speakers' position every year.

     

    My cherry CWIII's have changed color, but I welcome it. ...They've darkened and become slightly more red.

     

    I would not even think of using some sort of UV-rated car wax.  ..I'd sooner resort to just switching their position 1x/yer.

  15. I'd send them back.  ..I had to go through two defective pairs of CWIII's before getting a perfect pair.

     

    The first had a blemish similar to yours, and the second had a mid-horn that was not perfectly flush-mounted against the baffle.  It was slightly tilted because the recess wasn't properly routed out.  ..Very frustrating.  My retailer was very nice about out though; they never once suggested I just "accept" them.

     

     

    • Like 2
  16. Do the the people at the mixing board send different signals to the left and right bank of speakers, with the hopes of creating a stereo image?  ..Or are all speaker fed same signal (w/ perhaps some dividing of frequency ranges via a external crossover, etc.)

     

    In any case, it's led me to rethink the importance of imaging.  ...Which is perhaps one of the reasons why I love my Cornwall III's more than others I've had which do a much better job of imaging.  For example, small-ish stand-mounted 2-ways like PSB stratus Minis, and Spica TC-50's.  ..These speakers created incredible images, but ...meh.

    • Like 1
  17. Saw two concerts quite recently here in Phila: Norah Jones a week ago at the Mann Music Center and last night I saw Lyle Lovett and His Large Band at The City Winery.  Both were fabulous shows, particuly LL and HLB.

     

    The audio at both shows was terrific.  ..Acoustics weren't overly reverberant and the volume was low enough that my ears weren't buzzing by the end.  But in both cases there wasn't a bit of discernible stereo imaging even though my location would lend itself to hearing it.  When I'd close my eyes I couldn't for the life of me place the vocals or instruments - they all seemed to be coming from the same place.  Yet, I thought the sound was fabulous and the performances incredibly compelling.

     

    Which leads me to wonder why we so obsess on this particular aspect of audio playback at home??  Seems to me that imaging is mostly a mixing board trick for in-studio recordings that has little relevance to actual music, unless one is listening to a tiny, unamplified ensemble in the tiniest of settings.  Even if both of these artists used un-amplified acoustic instruments, I very much doubt I would be able to locate their instruments/voices w/ my eyes closed at these venues or any other even a fraction of their size.

     

    ..Just wonderin'

    • Like 5
  18. 1 hour ago, John Warren said:

    LOUDSPEAKER ENCLOSURES (CONT.)

     

    The show was not crowded, and we spent well over 30 min in many of the rooms we visited, sitting in the "sweet spot". There were a number of 2-way systems based on the AMT which I found to be excellent reproducers. ...

     

     

    Website for this system is interesting read with a few white papers that show what's going on inside the box.

     Borg – Fink Team

     

    Huh??  They lost me with this "Typical loudspeaker cabinets have pronounced structural resonances which are very audible and reduce the speaker’s ‘signal-to-noise ratio’"

     

    Speaker S/N ratio?? 

     

    Yes, resonances need to be kept below the threshold of audibility.  ..But solving the problem does not necessitate an inordinately complex cabinet design.  But since this is high-end audio - where fetishizing power cords, speaker cables, turntable plinth thickness,  etc.. looms large - I'm not surprised by claims that it does.    

    • Like 1
  19. 9 hours ago, John Warren said:

    Loudspeaker Enclosures 

     

    MDF, Particle Board, Plywood enclosures are gone (thank goodness!).  The top tier suppliers today have transitioned to composite structures including mineral casting, structural laminates and, of course, Aluminum plate.  The enclosures materials are where the engineering is most intense and where the distinctions will be made. 

     

    The small speaker below, made by Kroma (a German supplier) was an example of what a mineral cast enclosure provides.  $16k/pr with stands, this little speaker was outstanding.  The woofer surround is specifically designed to break-up standing waves that ripple along the cone.  This wasn't my favorite at the show, it was the one I was most impressed with.   Great reproduction at very high volumes.  

     

    Upper mids and HF handled by the AMT.  Many suppliers are transitioning to the AMT as well.

     

    Kroma_1.thumb.jpg.407bdf05ddd5f6e567587f31467596d0.jpg     

    Don't agree.

     

    My CW III are made from MDF and sound as hollow as a shoebox when you knock on them.  ...As do the latest iteration of LaScalas and Klipschorns.  Yet these three speakers sound much better to my ears than many speakers I have heard that have enclosures that are as solid as granite.  ..Some composite, some aluminum.

     

    IMHO, enclosure integrity needs to meet a certain minimum, but beyond that it become superfluous.  

     

    My Vandersteen 3A sigs and Paradigm S8 V2's felt like bricks when you knocked on them.  ..Yet I don't like them nearly as much as my CW's.  ..So there's gotta be more to speaker design than just enclosure rigidity.

    • Like 3
  20. I've never owned one of these... and don't know how well it measures, etc..  But still, audio was more fun back in those days.  ..Yes, the buttons, sliders, knobs, etc.. got rather scratchy rather quickly, but the flexibility and adjustability was great.

     

    486766125_ScreenShot2022-06-18at8_09_16AM.thumb.jpg.9fbb9779dc19bfaa3550c16e6411a2c6.jpg

     

    compare that with today...  ...There are high dollar integrateds that don't even have balance control.  Ugh..

     

     

    • Like 2
  21. 14 hours ago, ka7niq said:

    I hear absolutely little if any difference between this receiver, and high end solid state preamps

     

    I've been saying this for years.  ..Modern day amps/ integrateds and receivers that are engineered to be linear will sound pretty much alike so long as they aren't driven into distortion and these days that would include pretty much ALL such components..  Nowadays THD, S/R, Channel Separation, etc - even in cheap AVRs - is cheaply accomplished and exceeds the threshold of our ability to hear differences.

     

    My guess?  ..A vintage Onkyo Receiver?

    Feature you'll never go w/o?  ..Tone controls

     

    Personally, I'll NEVER again buy an integrated that lacks tone controls or a Mono switch.

     

    Maybe this??

     

    EDIT: oops, I shoulda read the whole thread.  I see you’ve already revealed your answer.  

     

    1291188546_ScreenShot2022-06-18at6_35_44AM.thumb.jpg.7a7d8e1fd26fc72fc01c95f9151560bd.jpg

    • Like 1
  22. On 6/10/2022 at 4:51 AM, GlennyC said:

    I have AB tested my set up against new La Scalas and find my Heresys to be quite satisfying. My premise is that all the additional size and expense of the large heritage speakers is to reproduce bass frequencies.

     

    I think this is largely true.  ..Deeper bass extension and greater SPL before distorting. 

     

    • Confused 1
    • Sad 1
×
×
  • Create New...