2 channel people confuse me

[CAS]

I was just browsing the net for some super high end audio systems and came across people who spend gobs of money on SQ and volume yet seem to give no regard to frequencies below 50Hz. One in particular (but not the most expensive) has an $85,000 amp driving only his 2 tweeters and uses nearly 4000 watts per channel for his mains. Electrostats seems to be very popular. This person has over $200,000 in equipment for his room (that is also his home theater) yet his investment in base is a VTF-3 Mk2 sub. No offense to HSU, but this guy probably spent more money on one square foot of his carpet than he did on his sub. It's like dining on caviar with a side of ramen noodles.

I don't get it.

Oh, and p.s. If he thinks he can hear $85,000 worth coming from his tweeters then I can taste $100,000 coming from my toaster.

[TheEAR]

These are not audiophiles,these people are high end bums. You balance your system,the system is as good as the weakest link.

You get large electrostatics panels,you get a very pure/high power solid state amp and must have dedicated filtrated AC lines capable of providing more than the amps may ever need at full output.Then if you add a sub yu should invest in a design that will not compress at the highest SPL you may even listen at.Integrate perfectly and be capable of a flat response at MAX SPL down to 16Hz.

NO matter how good the little HSU is its the weakest link when you have ultra transparent electrostatics,and its primitive crossover will most probably be another weak link.

For electrostats get a few velodyne DD18's,then you are talking sub bass quality.Bass reproduction is not only caveman SPL and displacement. I will not exchange my HGS18 for any HSU when sub bass quality is concerned.Not a chance

[Jay481985]

I would like to know the name of the 85000 dollar amp

Also yeah umm electrostatics cannot make lowrange or even some lower midrange hence even the e2 statements by martin logan use 8 i think 12 inch woofer and some midrange drivers

I guess he just copied what people think is the best.... I mean really if you have money like that get the krell heat inferno with 4 krell mrs subwoofers! one is capable of 120 db at 20 hertz. Imagine 4 so 132 db at 20 hertz.... ridiculous

[Speedball]

" I don't get it "

Maybe it doesn't sound all that bad without a sub.[:^)]

[TheEAR]

There are quite a few very expensive amps,in tubes you have Audio Note Ongaku and Gako-On(monoblocks) both above $90000,the Gako-On retailed $250000.All silver path where csilver could be used,obsessive quality and craftsmanship.Made by Mr Kondo himself,he is no more so these are no longer produced,unless I am mistaken.

You have Krell's Master Reference Amplifier also monoblock($120000 a pair),a massive monster of solid state,the ultimate expression of brawn and power,around 700lbs per amp and capable of driving any load no matter how crazy,and doubling its poutput down to 0.5 Ohm! Where it can deliver 16000W/per amp of course.

There are a few more ubber expensive all out,price no object designs among them the japanese tube amp specialist WAVAC,with thier single,preheated tube 100 monoblocks $69000 per pair if memory serves me right.

These are just the better known ubber amps.

On a side note

When you sample a great power amp there is no going back to a mere receiver,any receiver's amp section is a joke compared to the best in separates.I used the RF7's with a few receivers and a good many solid state amps.Even a Denon 5802 receiver(among the most capable receivers ever)is no match against a Celeste Moon W5 power amp,both finesse and all around natural and dynamic capabilities.It pays to get quality amplification.

[Jay481985]

they no longer make the krell mra they made a new one call the evolution supposedly better bandwidth

Also I thought the mark levinson r33 were the favorites.... they are only 60000 a pair when they still made them

I think the halcro h88 are the flavor now

Also I think those are pretty obsessive

And I think with speedball remark, the wilson x2 are fine without a sub as they are -2 at 16 hertz.... But then again a reviewer said there was even more information present with the wilson xs sub added

[TheEAR]

Mark Levinson NO33 monoblocks compared against the MRS makes them look like discount shop hardware. For the ultimate in amp horsepower there is nothing made or that was made that surpasses thye MRA's.

For HT seven MRS's would be the ultimate ticket,headroom to drown any power hungry speakers and still have plenty of reserve.

[Jay481985]

too bad the mra is not made anymore and the spec wise comparing the mark levinson 33 vs the krell mra is like a pissing contest.....

[CAS]

" I don't get it "

Maybe it doesn't sound all that bad without a sub.[:^)]

I'm sure it doesn't sound "all that bad" without a sub, but electrostats are incapable of producing bass of any type that would complement such a power plant of a system. Can you imagine your HT with a subsonic filter set at 50 Hz? Anything lower than pronounced dialog would sound vacant.

It would feel like driving around town in a Ferarri with your AM radio blasting away Polka's Greatest Hits. Sure, you spent $200,000 on your ride.....but I think I'll take my Vet.

[chops]

"I'm

sure it doesn't sound "all that bad" without a sub, but electrostats

are incapable of producing bass of any type that would complement such

a power plant of a system."

Apparently you've never heard a pair of Quad ESL-989's before. I have,

and they have good usable solid bass down to about 35Hz.

Also, however not electrostatic, Magnepan's MG 20.1's can also put out usable bass down to about 30-35Hz as well.

Both electrostats and magneplanar loudspeakers require loads of power,

and you won't get much output unless you have at least 300 watts rms

per channel. I used to see the meters on my old Carver TFM-35x amp

sweep all the way up to 350 watts just powering my old Magnepan

MGLR-1's which were rated for 86dB @ 1W, and they were crossed over at

80Hz!

And as far as these mega-$$$, mega-watt amps, I think they are just for

bragging rights between the manufacturers and the super rich snobs who

buy them. There's not a single loudspeaker out there than requires

16,000 watts of power for home use, unless it has an efficiency of 14dB

@ 1 W/1M.

[DrWho]

....usable bass down to about 30-35Hz as well.

Define usable...-10dB? Even at 30Hz you're missing over an octave of audible material...

[chops]

About -6dB actually. But who cares? You're still missing an octave of bass using Klipschorns too.

And at lower listening levels, the bigger Quads and Maggies have enough

bass for listeing to jazz, blues, orchestral, etc, etc. Granted, they

can't pump out that bass at high volume leves, but they still can do a

decent job.

I'm not trying to argue, nor am I going to get myself into one.(an arguement that is)

BTW, I'm a firm believer of using a subwoofer with ANY loudspeaker.

Why? Because where a loudspeaker might produce great bass is probably

NOT where it will image and soundstage best.

[cjgeraci]

BTW, I'm a firm believer of using a subwoofer with ANY loudspeaker. Why? Because where a loudspeaker might produce great bass is probably NOT where it will image and soundstage best.

Welcome back Chops. I've been beating that drum over in two-channel for a long time, but there is much opposition to even the idea of using a sub for music - no matter which speakers are being used.

Carl.

[DrWho]

BTW, I'm a firm believer of

using a subwoofer with ANY loudspeaker. Why? Because where a

loudspeaker might produce great bass is probably NOT where it will

image and soundstage best.

Welcome back Chops.

I've been beating that drum over in two-channel for a long time, but

there is much opposition to even the idea of using a sub for music

- no matter which speakers are being used.

Carl.

lol, I just chalk it up to fear of the unknown, "boring" source

material, personal taste, bad ear training, and (in)capability of the

user to dial in the sub. If any of those are true, then the person is

gonna hate a sub - if not solely due to placebo.

Heck, put a pair of khorns behind a scrim and then tell a bunch of the

sub naysayers that you're running khorns and a sub...I would bet good

money that if you start listening with a 50Hz HPF on the khorns that

the second you turned the filter off they would complain about crappy

bass....at which point I would love to lift the curtain and present

them with the speakers they tout so much [] Of course, now if anyone

wanted to challenge me on this point they would end up listening

differently so that they didn't look the fool....in which case I should

implement a subwoofer and then they would claim to be liking something

they supposedly hate []

Gotta love the placebo effect.

[chops]

BTW, I'm a firm believer of

using a subwoofer with ANY loudspeaker. Why? Because where a

loudspeaker might produce great bass is probably NOT where it will

image and soundstage best.

Welcome back Chops.

I've been beating that drum over in two-channel for a long time, but

there is much opposition to even the idea of using a sub for music

- no matter which speakers are being used.

Carl.

lol, I just chalk it up to fear of the unknown, "boring" source

material, personal taste, bad ear training, and (in)capability of the

user to dial in the sub. If any of those are true, then the person is

gonna hate a sub - if not solely due to placebo.

Heck, put a pair of khorns behind a scrim and then tell a bunch of the

sub naysayers that you're running khorns and a sub...I would bet good

money that if you start listening with a 50Hz HPF on the khorns that

the second you turned the filter off they would complain about crappy

bass....at which point I would love to lift the curtain and present

them with the speakers they tout so much [] Of course, now if anyone

wanted to challenge me on this point they would end up listening

differently so that they didn't look the fool....in which case I should

implement a subwoofer and then they would claim to be liking something

they supposedly hate []

Gotta love the placebo effect.

Hi cjgeraci. Thanks for the welcome.

I have found that a lot of 2-channel audiophiles tend to be purists. For them, either a very simple 2-way loudspeaker or a single driver system is THE only way to go. They think that kind of setup is the absolute best there can be, and is the truest to the original venue and instruments involved in the recording. If you are completely deaf from 100Hz and down, then that might be the best system for you.

I'm sorry, but there is a lot more to music once you dive below 100Hz. However, if you have your loudspeakers placed of optimum imaging and soundstaging, then they are most likely pulled out and away from the walls, especially from the corners. And if they are, then you are not getting the maximum bass output of those speakers, even if they do reach down to 20Hz.

OTOH, if you shove the loudspeakers up against the walls and in the corners, you get the maximum bass output of the speakers. Now that's not to say that it's the best quality of bass, but it is the best "quantity" of bass. And in doing this, you are going to lose a lot of that imaging and suondstaging due to early reflections off of the side walls. Even with my CW's crossed over at 80Hz, I still had to pull them out from the walls a couple of feet to help with the imaging and to eliminate a thumpy, muddy mid-bass from them being in the corners.

This is the perfect place to add a subwoofer, and I'm talking about a real subwoofer that's capable of reaching down to 16Hz or so cleanly with usable output at that frequency. Most of your sub-$1000 subs (no pun intended) only have usable output to 25-30Hz, if that. There are a few exceptions like SVS and... well.... SVS I guess. Even their smallest sub, the PB10-ISD has usable clean output to 18Hz. Anyway...

Here's where things get a little tricky. For years, the rumor has been that a subwoofer should be placed in a corner for optimum bass. Again, like with the loudspeakers, this is only true if you want maximum bass output and do not care too much about bass quality. Regardless of the room or sub, you are always going to have your most room gain in the corners, and putting a subwoofer in one of those corners is only going to amplify that gain, making the bass boomy and blurred.

Over the years, I have found that placing the sub somewhere along the mid-point of the front wall or one of the side walls produces the best quality of bass. Do I lose a little output from doing this? Sure I do, but it's nothing a little tweak of the gain can't take care of. To find the best place for the sub, place a sub at your listening position, walk along the walls around the room and take note of where the bass is at its weakest. Take your sub and place it along that point on the wall.

Also, if you run two identical subwoofers, you can place them in two

different locations in your room to help smooth out the room modes even more. With your first sub playing only (in its optimum location), take a walk along the walls again and find another spot where the bass is weakest, and place your second sub in that location. Obviously, you'll have to play around with the phase and gain of each sub to get them to "lock together" to sound best. IOW, eliminate as much cancellation as possible between the two subs due to the two different locations in the room, and that will give you the most output of both subs in your room with the best possible bass quality.

I think I might have gone a little far with this post, but it's for the greater good. []

[DrWho]

Here you go chops...pretty much everything you mentioned, but with measurements:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf

Btw, with proper room treatment the front corners would be the best

location for subs (to take full advantage of the boundary gain). The

reason corner loading tends to sound boomy is due to the eigentones of

the room, but those should be corrected for anyway (moving the subs

around just moves the problem spots around).

[chops]

Here you go chops...pretty much everything you mentioned, but with measurements:

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf

Btw, with proper room treatment the front corners would be the best

location for subs (to take full advantage of the boundary gain). The

reason corner loading tends to sound boomy is due to the eigentones of

the room, but those should be corrected for anyway (moving the subs

around just moves the problem spots around).

I don't need to read that. I taught them everything they know. LOL!!! j/k []

Seriously though, I read that a while back along with many others as I am always on the lookout for reproducing the most accurate, detailed and cleanest bass possible. I am really looking forward and the next couple weeks ahead as I will be starting my new subwoofer project using no less that four Dayton 15" DVC drivers in two 12 cu.ft. ported enclosures tuned to 12Hz. Very exciting times ahead! [H]

[Fish]

Those 2 channel guys kill me........Hey...wait a minute,I like 2 channel

too.When you add a sub its still 2ch,just 3/4/5/6 etc... speakers,so

its all good,right? Well....maybe not for the purist(I was one by

default back in the day)but the other 90+% can enjoy the extra slam.

[CAS]

Those 2 channel guys kill me........Hey...wait a minute,I like 2 channel too.When you add a sub its still 2ch,just 3/4/5/6 etc... speakers,so its all good,right? Well....maybe not for the purist(I was one by default back in the day)but the other 90+% can enjoy the extra slam.

The real purist doesn't listen to silly reproduced music. They settle only for live, unplugged 2-man bands with one instrument each who sit naked on either side of you with preselected voices for timbre match.

[chops]

Now that's just a nasty picture. [8-|]