Eye Opening Experience

[Chris A]

35 minutes ago, ODS123 said:

The beauty of the analog era is that advancing to the next song was such a PIA that people had little choice but to hear a whole album side thus getting a sense of the connectedness b/w the songs and the theme of the album.  Today, digital streaming has allowed everyone to develop musical ADD.  People listen only the most accessible song(s) on an album, then move on.

Well, the issues of our times...  I think every generation harbors something that they despise about succeeding generations, and many boomers despise that development.  But fortunately, those issues have little to do with the sound quality of the sound reproduction system...except perhaps the trashing of the CD and lossy digital formats via compression, limiting, and overprocessing (thus losing all phase coherence of the original mixdown tracks) by the record companies themselves.  That has been a real tragedy to the pastime/hobby.

 

During PWK's youth and public schooling, music was a live-only experience (...think about that for a moment...).  Only in his later middle-aged years was the concept of hi-fi really invented, and not until his mid-50s did stereo recordings commonly appear on the sales racks.  Widespread sales of multichannel music recordings showed up about the time that he passed away.  He created the Klipschorn, Heresy, Cornwall, La Scala, and Belle, and had a hand in many more loudspeaker designs.  I dare say that those have been sturdy products--that are still relevant today.  I can think of no other inventions of any complexity that I can identify still in use, not that those loudspeakers can't be improved upon today, but they are remarkable nevertheless.  I wish that my own inventions were similarly successful, ubiquitously found, and in-use.

[babadono]

^ Yes, God Bless Paul Wilbur Klipsch.

[ODS123]

21 minutes ago, Chris A said:

I can think of no other inventions of any complexity that I can identify still in use, not that those loudspeakers can't be improved upon today, but they are remarkable nevertheless.  I wish that my own inventions were similarly successful, ubiquitously found, and in-use.

 I agree.  ..And though I don't romanticize analog the way some do, I will say it absolutely astonishing how good a chip of gem stone dragged around a disc of plastic can sound.  Absolutely incredible.  It's limitations notwithstanding, it was an amazing invention.  ..And to think how far it came.  I have my great grandparents Victrola in my living room.  ..The music played on it was barely audible above all the surface noise.

[Chris A]

1 hour ago, Deang said:

This thread is killing me.

Dean, this has been surprising to me, honestly, and something that I would've never forecast but nevertheless this has been my experience.  As the compression drivers have generally gotten better performing and the DSP crossovers have progressed to where we're at today as well, I've found that there is little difference in a great performance amplifier and a slightly greater one--certainly not worth thousands or even 100s of dollars.  The real difference is making sure that both amplifiers are producing the same SPL vs. frequency.  After that, not much A-B change is really there in my experience.  YMMV.  Once you get the room acoustics under control, it gets really difficult to tell the difference nowadays--unless of course the amplifier is dramatically shifting the phase/group delay, and adding its own reverb due to room-horn microphonics (which is high output impedance-driven). 

 

However, there has been real eye-openers on room acoustics upgrades and getting the DSP settings right (as well as the DSP crossover output analog sections)--in my experience.  I don't know if MikeTN shares these views exactly, but I do know that he has stated that the differences in amplifier performance sometimes gets very, very small.  When we heard the difference between a really good tube preamp and an integrated amp in the Hope listening room next to the chamber, I think everyone was gasping at how little difference there was--and if you remember, much more than half the people in the room couldn't reliably pick out the difference (IIRC, I don't believe you were there for that demo: Roger and I could tell, but I didn't see others in the room that could--and of course Roy was the test driver.) I think the DSP crossover in use at that time had a little to do with that, but perhaps not as much as everyone seems to think.  Small differences now, indeed.

 

Chris

[ClaudeJ1]

22 hours ago, ODS123 said:

Again, I would urge beginners reading this thread to consider that it's the speakers, and proper room acoustics that make the system.  Modern day cd players are indistinguishable from one another and so too are amps so long as they engineered to be linear AND operated within their design limits.  

Sage advice, but 99 percent of the people ignore this, much like they think great photography is about the camera and not the lighting.

[Max2]

That DSP leaves a foot print

50 minutes ago, Chris A said:

Dean, this has been surprising to me, honestly, and something that I would've never forecast but nevertheless this has been my experience.  As the compression drivers have generally gotten better performing and the DSP crossovers have progressed to where we're at today as well, I've found that there is little difference in a great performance amplifier and a slightly greater one--certainly not worth thousands or even 100s of dollars.  The real difference is making sure that both amplifiers are producing the same SPL vs. frequency.  After that, not much A-B change is really there in my experience.  YMMV.  Once you get the room acoustics under control, it gets really difficult to tell the difference nowadays--unless of course the amplifier is dramatically shifting the phase/group delay, and adding its own reverb due to room-horn microphonics (which is high output impedance-driven). 

 

However, there has been real eye-openers on room acoustics upgrades and getting the DSP settings right (as well as the DSP crossover output analog sections)--in my experience.  I don't know if MikeTN shares these views exactly, but I do know that he has stated that the differences in amplifier performance sometimes gets very, very small.  When we heard the difference between a really good tube preamp and an integrated amp in the Hope listening room next to the chamber, I think everyone was gasping at how little difference there was--and if you remember, much more than half the people in the room couldn't reliably pick out the difference (IIRC, I don't believe you were there for that demo: Roger and I could tell, but I didn't see others in the room that could--and of course Roy was the test driver.) I think the DSP crossover in use at that time had a little to do with that, but perhaps not as much as everyone seems to think.  Small differences now, indeed.

 

Chris

Can you not say with some certainty that the DSP's out there leave an audible foot print no matter what?   

 

Kind of like using those mason jars that had tomato's in them for your clear liquor and no matter how many times you wash them, that liquor is gonna have a hint of Roma to it.

[jimjimbo]

2 hours ago, Deang said:

An iPod. Seriously?

Yea, but it had two giant Jupiter VT caps wired into it.  Sounded much better.....

[Chris A]

29 minutes ago, Max2 said:

Can you not say with some certainty that the DSP's out there [do not] leave an audible foot print no matter what?  

I can definitely say that the Xilica XP crossovers produce less "footprint" than any passive crossover greater than first order--I believe is the answer to your real question.  That's something that anyone here owning a Xilica can attest to.  It's transparent.  The Xilica is the least of concerns, but the settings used on that crossover are pretty important, and should be dialed into the room acoustics using in-room measurements.

 

The other things that we're not talking about are the real issues. The compression driver used on the K-402 is audible.  The placement of the Jubilees in-room is audible.  The use of phonograph records on turntables/cartridges is really audible.

 

Chris

[Max2]

49 minutes ago, Chris A said:

I can definitely say that the Xilica XP crossovers produce less "footprint" than any passive crossover greater than first order--I believe is the answer to your real question.  That's something that anyone here owning a Xilica can attest to.  It's transparent.  The Xilica is the least of concerns, but the settings used on that crossover are pretty important, and should be dialed into the room acoustics using in-room measurements.

 

The other things that we're not talking about are the real issues. The compression driver used on the K-402 is audible.  The placement of the Jubilees in-room is audible.  The use of phonograph records on turntables/cartridges is really audible.

 

Chris

 

But what you have found on the AMP side is lack of signature or at least indistinguishable once you get in the uppers of builds?  

[kink56]

I find it funny how much rationalization AGAINST the possibility that a real high end system cannot possibly sound THAT much better than Cornwalls and McIntosh (for example).   I know I will never be able to afford a true high end system, but I am not going to try to fool myself that they don't blow anything I have ever owned away.  And NO a $200K systems does not sound 10 times better than a $20K system, but I am willing to say they DO sound at least 50% better (1 and a half times better). And that is what some people are paying for. And maybe a $500K system with sound 10% better than that. 

 

You have to pay a LOT to move up a significant level.   And even the richest most serious audiophile will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of bucks to get that last 2-3% and NEVER actually get there.  It is as each increment is half as big as the last, until it becomes miniscule as at the same time the expenditure become more astronomical. It is called diminishing returns. 

 

And there is MORE to a system than PLAYING LOUD.   

 

 

[ClaudeJ1]

6 hours ago, kink56 said:

I find it funny how much rationalization AGAINST the possibility that a real high end system cannot possibly sound THAT much better than Cornwalls and McIntosh (for example).   I know I will never be able to afford a true high end system, but I am not going to try to fool myself that they don't blow anything I have ever owned away.  And NO a $200K systems does not sound 10 times better than a $20K system, but I am willing to say they DO sound at least 50% better (1 and a half times better). And that is what some people are paying for. And maybe a $500K system with sound 10% better than that. 

 

You have to pay a LOT to move up a significant level.   And even the richest most serious audiophile will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of bucks to get that last 2-3% and NEVER actually get there.  It is as each increment is half as big as the last, until it becomes miniscule as at the same time the expenditure become more astronomical. It is called diminishing returns. 

 

And there is MORE to a system than PLAYING LOUD.   

 

 

The truest of words, spoken so clearly about the diminishing returns of Audio. It's all garbage compared to acoustic music in real space, a GRAND ILLUSION. But we want the best illusion we can afford, with or without diminishing returns. I photographed a Porsche for a rich guy, and he considers it his crap car compared his other 10 cars, which cost Half to over a Million plus dollars each. He also has a 10 Million dollar jet so he can fly to Italy for dinner at his favorite restaurant with his wife and fly back the next day, while the rest of us go to Olive Garden.

[Dave A]

14 hours ago, Chris A said:

Recently, there was yet another "debate" on the subject of the audibility of modulation distortion in another forum.  One notable acoustician was claiming (once again) that it's inaudible and therefore, doesn't matter.  (Never mind that the author has also stated that be hasn't heard fully horn-loaded loudspeakers that are well performing, or that he doesn't listen to classical music, the type of recordings which I find to be the biggest discriminators of loudspeaker/room acoustics sound quality.)  This brought back to mind the words of PWK on his now famous three articles on modulation distortion in JAES (1969):

 

I believe that this thread opened on the subject of "inner detail" and transparency.

This has been my experience and the reason why I am heading towards a Super MWM and 402 horn. I have had lower bass with subs and things like KT-456's but nothing has the presence and clarity of those MWM bins of anything I have ever had in my shop.

[ODS123]

12 hours ago, kink56 said:

I find it funny how much rationalization AGAINST the possibility that a real high end system cannot possibly sound THAT much better than Cornwalls and McIntosh (for example). 

....

And there is MORE to a system than PLAYING LOUD.   

 

 

 

Since I'm the one in this thread with Cornwalls and a McIntosh amp, I'm compelled to reply.

 

Yes, I understand there is more to a system than playing loud.  I have excellent measured hearing and I have a keen sense of  musical nuance that has been honed from years of playing and listening to recorded AND live music, including acoustic unamplified performances. I have thousands of LP's, CD's and digital music albums. Bottomline:  I'm a lifelong music obsessive who cares as much about recreating the "live" music experience at home as anyone here.  

 

And it is because of my love for this hobby that I bemoan how so few of it's participants give a rip about making sure the differences they hear b/w pieces of gear (or an interconnect, speaker cable, power conditioner, etc...) are REAL rather than the consequence of biases.

 

 I am resigned to not changing the minds of any of those who are convinced that gear selection is much like wine tasting, but I DO hope to give food for thought to the beginner who comes to this forum in the hopes of learning about the hobby so as to make a better, more informed decision before buying a piece of gear or a whole system.   And to them I say, your system is mostly about speaker selection and listening environment.  That is where you should spend the bulk of your time and money.  

[Deang]

I think any beginner coming into this thread is going to think we’re just a bunch of idiots. There’s very little here in the way of practical advice. Well, except that part about just buying your stuff at Walmart, because when you’re blindfolded, you can’t tell the difference anyway. 

[ODS123]

16 minutes ago, Deang said:

I think any beginner coming into this thread is going to think we’re just a bunch of idiots. There’s very little here in the way of practical advice. Well, except that part about just buying your stuff at Walmart, because when you’re blindfolded, you can’t tell the difference anyway. 

 

No one is saying that.  Differences b/w speakers are audible.  Differences b/w amplifiers, cd players, DAC's, cables, etc...  not so much.  As I've said before, just how big and significant can differences b/w such components be if there is ANY debate at all about their existence???  Beginners should dwell on that and remember it when they read someone claiming that X amp totally blew away Y amp.

[Tarheel TJ]

13 hours ago, kink56 said:

I find it funny how much rationalization AGAINST the possibility that a real high end system cannot possibly sound THAT much better than Cornwalls and McIntosh (for example).   I know I will never be able to afford a true high end system, but I am not going to try to fool myself that they don't blow anything I have ever owned away.  And NO a $200K systems does not sound 10 times better than a $20K system, but I am willing to say they DO sound at least 50% better (1 and a half times better). And that is what some people are paying for. And maybe a $500K system with sound 10% better than that. 

 

You have to pay a LOT to move up a significant level.   And even the richest most serious audiophile will spend tens or hundreds of thousands of bucks to get that last 2-3% and NEVER actually get there.  It is as each increment is half as big as the last, until it becomes miniscule as at the same time the expenditure become more astronomical. It is called diminishing returns. 

 

And there is MORE to a system than PLAYING LOUD.   

 

 

    I think this really gets at the heart of why I started this thread.  If you hang out here long enough, you will get the impression that K-horns, or if not those, then certainly Jubes, are the absolute top of the mountain and that nothing else compares.  I too fell into this way of thinking.  The speakers I have are very similar in many ways to Jubes.

   I also have had similar experiences to what Chris A describes.  Once you get a very low-distortion speaker setup in a well-treated room and EQ it flat, a lot of other differences melt away.  I can easily tell the difference between tube and solid-state, or even various types of tube amps when used with a stock pair of Heresies.  With my multi-amped DSP setup.... not nearly as much.

   My general feeling after reaching this point is that there just wasn't that much more improvement to be made.  After all, if you stop hearing much difference where you used to hear it before, what is the point of continuing to change things?

   That is why my experience in front of the kilo-buck system was so interesting.  His system did not resemble my own, and it did not resemble the "top of the mountain" type systems you often see on here.  And yet, it was really, really good.  I have been doing some listening to my own system since, and it is also really, really good, although a little different in presentation.  However, I can't help but miss a little bit of sparkle and magic that his had.  Again, I think a lot of this was source related more than speaker related.

   I guess my main point in posting was to marvel at the excellent results this gentleman was able to achieve from such a drastically different approach.  His passive crossover, non-horn speaker, non DSP setup easily equaled my own in most areas, and far surpassed it in others.  Granted, he has some 40 or 50 times the investment that I do, so I suppose this shouldn't be too surprising.  It is just interesting to me that there appears to be more than one way to skin this cat.  I still definitely believe in the approach that I and others (like Chris A) have taken.  It absolutely appears to be the most effective way to achieve what we are all looking for..... but as I have learned, it is not the only way.

[Shiva]

We all here mostly follow a similar arc.  We hear, see something somewhere,  like it, then want to bring that into the home.  If one has the cash, one could simply say wrap that up, deliver it to my home, set it up, show me how to work it, then get out.😀  Done.  Or like many here, the desire to recreate that at home at a better price point arises, as that is part of the fun of it.   Myself, I see and note the other components in the system, but I would probably start with the speakers.  In this situation with the Martens,  I would of course notice that they use ceramic drivers.   Perhaps, that is part of the great sound Im hearing. Time to check the used market. At the moment, nothing.  Perusing Audiogon as I do, I notice that Avalon Acoustics uses the same ceramic drivers and so will try to find a way to have a listen to those also, I love their style too.    

https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis97fha-avalon-acoustics-eidolon-diamond-europe-full-range      If they have the sound that I heard or close to it, then perhaps this used pair on Audiogon.  The price just went from 50K down to 14. Nice. Still a big chunk of change, but I would also notice that Avalon speakers sell pretty well over there, so If I don't like them, I will simply flip them at minimum loss, or if kept for a time, will nearly break even down the road.     Here is another speaker that does ceramic, perhaps a listen to those as well. https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis98781-gauder-akustik-cassiano-1-owner-gorgeous-speakers-full-range.  Now we are down to 7900 bucks, though their looks don't blow me away, don't know how well they sell on the used market either, which would make me pause as well.    They will have to be very good to go that route.  For myself,  this all happens quietly, enjoying the search, the experimentation at home and of course the final reveal, if it works. 👍  

[Marvel]

8 hours ago, Shiva said:

Here is another speaker that does ceramic, perhaps a listen to those as well. https://www.audiogon.com/listings/lis98781-gauder-akustik-cassiano-1-owner-gorgeous-speakers-full-range.  Now we are down to 7900 bucks, though their looks don't blow me away, don't know how well they sell on the used market either, which would make me pause as well.    They will have to be very good to go that route.  For myself,  this all happens quietly, enjoying the search, the experimentation at home and of course the final reveal, if it works. 👍  

 

I posted earlier about listening to a pair of Gauder Acustik Berliners. They were nice... not worth the $160k in my mind, but I imagine if they were set up in a properly treated room that they would have sounded better.

 

The Berliners are the larger of the two pair. Of course, they are being powered by my low powered 2A3 amps.

 

 

 

Bruce

[juniper]

i have had this experience, its just different, as an esteemed forum member who heard the same system said, it made K- horns sound like an am radio.... i have heard his K-horns and they sounded good, then he upgraded them and  the sounded great, but there is a big difference when a room is treated floor to ceiling and then dialed in with an active crossover, with great gear and a highly tuned system...

[Max2]

35 minutes ago, juniper said:

i have had this experience, its just different, as an esteemed forum member who heard the same system said, it made K- horns sound like an am radio.... i have heard his K-horns and they sounded good, then he upgraded them and  the sounded great, but there is a big difference when a room is treated floor to ceiling and then dialed in with an active crossover, with great gear and a highly tuned system...

I think that's the biggest kicker, the variables that go overlooked.  So many trying to make improvements without starting on a real foundation to reveal the differences.   Sure your AVR sounds the same as opposed to an outboard amp while hooked up in your dorm room, I believe you!    Or, I sold my amp because Jurrasic Park sounded the same @ 120 DB  as opposed to my separate setup that I thought would make a difference in my concrete walled and floored basement, I believe you again!   

 

I don't see how in the heck you can get the kind of midrange involving creamy, dynamic, clear vocals from a 5 or 6 inch cone driver and a 1 inch dome tweeter when compared to a true performance oriented horn mid, but there are lots of others here to confirm this by experience I guess.    I gave up a few decades ago with the plethora of tower offerings such as the  Norman Lab movement.  It seems drivers have changed a bit as well as the dome tweeters, but without amplifying with a horn, I still see a glorified Polk or a Norman tower.