Totally agree the the F is better than the B and maybe the CO as well. Prob not little b or the KG or the MT though. Should check out ZR for sure it’s really G!
Speakers The single most critical component
I know we've been over this Q hundreds of X's over the past 20 years here on audion, You can find dozen of topics dealing with this Q <which is the ,,,,most important component...>>
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system.
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter) in the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity.
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity single drivers.
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs.
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic.
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
a kt88 in brand X will sound close to brand Y.
So amplification takes a distant 2nd place in critical component. No need to break the bank buying amp A vs a lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
the Shanling
only a miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17.
Now as for best source , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds.
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy.
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity voicing issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years,
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances.
To sum up, a ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver.
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity.
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system.
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter) in the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity.
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity single drivers.
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs.
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic.
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
a kt88 in brand X will sound close to brand Y.
So amplification takes a distant 2nd place in critical component. No need to break the bank buying amp A vs a lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
the Shanling
only a miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17.
Now as for best source , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds.
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy.
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity voicing issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years,
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances.
To sum up, a ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver.
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity.
353 responses Add your response
Garbage in = garbage out is a red herring.. even entry level source and amps are pretty good.. therefore there is no "garbage in". There is a little bit better in, there is I like the sound of that in a little better than another in, but there is no garbage in. ALL speakers are colored, have the highest levels of distortion of all components by a LARGE margin, and have the most severe limitations when it comes to integrating them into the room.... so this is actually a stupid debate. You have to find a speaker that fits your room and your tastes. What comes before is icing on the cake,, the speaker is the cake. 1. Drive a $1000 speaker with a $100,000 front end and it sounds like a $1000 speaker. 2. Drive $100,000 speakers with a $1000 front end and its not as good as it can be, but it will sound much better than #1 end of debate, you can close this thread |
Garbage in = garbage out is a red herring.. even entry level source and amps are pretty good.. therefore there is no "garbage in". There is a little bit better in, there is I like the sound of that in a little better than another in, but there is no garbage in.I like very much your first paragraph affirmation , and i concur with it totally.... All what you say after miss the essential point... The room is the cake, you must design a room with all the passive and active acoustical controls necessary to help your speakers... Ask any acoustician, the best speakers sound bad in a bad room and good in a good room.... Less pricey speakers will beat costly one if put in a good room and the pricey one in a bad room... Go on youtube et listen pricey speakers in a bad room there is plenty to listen to..... I prefer my 50 dollars used speakers in my controlled room than many very very costly one ... We never listen to speakers.... We listen to room/speakers.... Let the debate going on please....We will keep the thread .... 😊 |
ALL speakers are colored, have the highest levels of distortion of all components by a LARGE margin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Finally after 40 years of testing, thinking, pondering, yes agree, Speakers will be the most critical component. There are so many box/xover speakers that will ruin even a $100k Jadis set up or any other $100k set up of your own choice. Mine just happened to be Jadis. That said, as i mentioned above several times. Richard Gray lent me 2 of his loan amps, while the Defy was undergoing new Caps/new resistors, new internal wires. The Dyanco ST50 and his Allan Organ monos, both were very close to the $9k/new Defy7. = a KT88 = almost any other KT88. Although that is a blanket statement. There are some tube designs that just <<got it wrong>>, Point is, you do not need to worry about amplification, nor much of source, phoono is superior to cd for sure, however most of my classical is not found on LP, so now i addeda phono and have started collecting some classical(Pettersson symphonies) which i also have the cd as well. Glad a few discerning audiophiles can help me out in this heated debate. There are so many speakers of the box/xover design when used with any tube amplification, which will drastically lower the purity and fidelity of the source. Hopefully after we close this topic, my 2 mantras will plant seeds in newbies minds which decades later will take root. 1) speakers are the single critical component 2) FR are the King of all speaker designs 3) compression TI Horns are the king of all tweets added to a FR I can not even give away the Thors right now, like most xover/box designs they just sit on various sites as if in a junk yard. You will rarely, if EVER finda <<Used FR>> on the market. Snaped up in less than 1 week, at near full price. I rest my case. |
Let the debate going on please....We will keep the thread .... 😊
~~~~~~~~~~ If we do not openly, freely , with civility discuss this speaker issue, how will we ever get to the bottom of things? Agree, let the discussion continue. I can tell you as of now, my mind is as shut /closed even more so than my worship of the Thors, which now i hate with a passion, although i could have sworn in my YT uploads these were <,Nirvana>> THen a single 6.5 FR , like David, slew the Goliath. Now i am a devotee of only 1 speaker design, FR/Compression combo. Nothing from Troels Gravesen's lab could even remotely change my mind. I was indoctrinated into the old school, now i am a awakened believer. |
db efficiency Efficacy, affectivity, effect. all this comes into play when employing a speaker with any tube amplifier. Not only SET amplifiers , also push pull requires if not demands, if to say <match made in heaven> has to be paired with a FR driver. This is physics. Its not rocket science. Its common sense. Employing any speaker of the old school box/xover design you are severely compromising the life of a tube and crippling the tubes ability to perform as it was designed to perform. We were born and raised on box/xover designs, now its time to leave that all behind us, as we enter the 21st century audiophile cosmos. |
@mahgister -- The room is the cake, you must design a room with all the passive and active acoustical controls necessary to help your speakers... I would go so far to say the room is certainly part of the cake as the main dish - in conjunction with the speakers, that is. The predominant focus on acoustics potentially fails to take into account their being relative to the speakers and their dispersive nature. That is, below the Schroeder frequency (seeing the room here as a resonator) a multitude of bass sources is the acoustic measure to at least partially alleviate the need for absorbers/bass traps/PEQ, while above the Schroeder frequency narrower dispersive characteristics from the likes of line sources, large coned drivers and horns will limit the influence of the room. That is to say: generally speaking a smaller, direct radiating coned speaker will be more dependent on acoustic measures, or certainly for the listening room to natively better suit it for it to perform closer to its fuller potential, compared to earlier mentioned more narrowly dispersive, larger speakers. My listening room is on the livelier side of neutral, and the recent addition of a (much) larger MF/HF Constant Directivity horn (replacing its smaller CD horn sibling) - controlling dispersion better and also lower in frequency - has seen a welcome indifference to the acoustics at higher SPL’s in particular; the sound is now more focused, physical, relaxed and better saturated. My main gripe with absorption (in contrast to diffusion) is that used too extensively it simply kills the soundstage and natural life of the presentation. Indeed, usually I find the fine line here to be easily crossed with just a limited amount of absorption. That’s why earlier I left the acoustics of my listening room on the slightly livelier side, a compromise for sure, whereas now (with the bigger horns) it feels closer to being ideal. |
The predominant focus on acoustics potentially fails to take into account their being relative to the speakers and their dispersive nature. That is, below the Schroeder frequency (seeing the room here as a resonator) a multitude of bass sources is the acoustic measure to at least partially alleviate the need for absorbers/bass traps/PEQ, while above the Schroeder frequency narrower dispersive characteristics from the likes of line sources, large coned drivers and horns will limit the influence of the room.You remark is sound and wise....😊 😁 BUT you forget something not me..... You forgot that the room is not ONLY AND MAINLY made of directions where the waves bounce on the 6 walls but if the room is like you said a resonator, the room is constituted by different pressure zones, and these zones are modified in my small room by a grid of 32 resonators which i used like a "mechanical equalizer"...( by the way the cost is zero because it is recycled pipes and tubes and straws) Then this tool which is not less powerful than the passive material treatment and complement it, constitute what i called an active control of the room... ---Passive material treatment: reflection-absorption-diffusion in balance.. --- Active control: distributed finely tuned resonators which work with the wavefronts coming from each speaker to each ear in a precise timing treshold that will produce not only imaging and a better soundstage but more importantly a "listener envelopment" Or LEV experience which is the sensation when timing of the frontwaves are under control to be in the room where are the musician and not the musicians being in your room...For example, in some recording the voices of the singers come from behind me and the orchestra sound come from the opposite wall where are the speakers, then i am in the midst of the opera scene....In active control i used also a grid of connected Schumann generators with success they contribute but less powerfully than my "mechanical equalizer".... Give me any relatively good speakers and i will be happy AFTER my installment of acoustic control not before .... The room is way more important than the speakers, if they are relatively good one to begins with for sure.... Like my Tannoy was or my actual Mission Cyrus....It is unbelievable but this is my experience... Because most people have never experience it and will never experience it, this will stay unbelievable... We never listen to our speakers, we listen to our room, EVEN in nearfield listening, contrary to a false belief in audio threads... The sound waves speed made them crossing my 13 square feet "bad" room 80 times in one second.... Meditate about this....And our brain work in approx. 80 millisecond treshold slices to create the sound 3-d presence impression correlating each ear first frontwaves cues with one another.... This is the meditation about this fact that inspired me to create my "mechanical equalizer" after reading some acoustical paper research about timing thresholds importance for the LEV experience... No speakers, nevermind his specs sheets, could replace by only itself the room controls for the sound recreation in all characteristic, natural timbre experience, imaging, lev, asw, soundstage etc.... Most people ignoring this speak about speakers like they speak about "tastes".... This is only ignorance of acoustic.... |
All what you say after miss the essential point... No , I nailed the essential point, which I stated very clearly,.... you have to pick speakers that work in the room. Crap speakers in a great room still sound like crap. Great speakers in a crap room will still sound pretty good just like great speakers with entry level electronics will still sound pretty good soooooo it all comes back to the most important thing to get right ... speakers, which are therefore the cake...... a great room can’t fix bad speakers so you start with speakers everything else is icing Although not ideal, you can mitigate a lot about a bad room by listening in the near field , there is nothing you can do to overcome bad speakers i’ve had the same speakers for 20 years because they work for me in my room |
No , I nailed the essential point, which I stated very clearly,.... you have to pick speakers that work in the roomNobody will argue that we must choose first a relatively good speaker set...If the essential point is what we must do first, you win....😁 But for me it is NOT the essential part at all.... This is EASY to buy a relatively good pair of speakers, very easy.... BUT Controls of the room are NOT so easy to install... Second you have not understood my point: The comparative change and upgrading value of a room BEFORE and AFTER controls installation EXCEED the difference between the choice of two relatively good speakers.... Think a minute about the number of people owning already a relatively good pair of speakers versus the number of people owning a relatively rightfully controlled room... There is no COMPARISON between the 2 numbers...the first number is huge compared to the second one.... I dont speak about the number of people here who would say that their room is good.... I speak about a room REALLY under controls... But you missed my point because you cannot imagine what is a controlled room and how powerful it is.... Most people think that they own a good room already....It is an illusion... How can you know the effect of acoustical control when you never lived through it? I speak about controls of the room not only room with some bass traps and some passive materials treatment...I speak about an ACTIVATED room versus a passive room... Anyway keep your illusion... But here is a test: If you want to know if your room is under controls, listen to The Three penny opera 1958 by Kurt Weill with Lotte Lenya and if you could listen the orchestra playing in front of you, seating in front of your speakers, but the singers voices coming from your back wall where there is no speakers, your room is under acoustic controls....Acoustic is the cake and timing tresholds of the first frontwaves are the key....Anybody could buy a good pair of speakers but it is the room controls which will decide what you will hearing or not.... I bet that if you pass the test all orchestra+singers will be in front of you but who knows?....This the difference between the musicians in your room and you being in the scene "enveloped" by the sound experience.... I use this exceptional recording of Kurt Weill because the sound engineer make possible this test so good his recording tech. was.... By the way the acoustical characteristic or concept i described in this test is called the "listener envelopment" or LEV... No speakers will give you this experience of the " listener envelopment" at any price in a bad room.... Then in a word: speakers are REPLACEABLE, room are not, especially a room under controls...... And most people claim the opposite: their beloved speakers and costly one are irreplaceable, and their room is replaceable or secondary and their room is always OK anyway in their mind, so much the importance of the speakers design weight more than acoustical laws....... The truth is ANY speakers must be adapted first to the geometry and size of the room where it will work for sure, but a room without controls will not create miracles even with speakers well chosen for it .... This is the meaning of my affirmation.... |
This is EASY to buy a relatively good pair of speakers, very easy.... BUT Controls of the room are NOT so easy to install... the thread is about the most critical component, not about what is easy and if you hire an expert in room acoustics the room is also very easy Then in a word: speakers are REPLACEABLE, room are not, especially a room under controls...... You are going on and on about modifying the room..isn't that in effect "replacing" the room? No, not the walls, but you are replacing how they react to the sound waves so you are effectively replacing the room. But you missed my point because you cannot imagine what is a controlled room and how powerful it is.... how do you know what I missed or what I can imagine.?? . My room is under control, The RT60 is perfect, it is lively enough without being too lively, The soundstage is expansive and coherent.. it sounds fantastic.. but back to the beginning...the original point of this thread..it is not about what is easiest, it is about what is most critical... crap speakers sound like crap no matter what you do to the room AND you can mitigate the room by listening in the near field ... . Speakers are therefore most critical Start at the other end... envision the perfect system.. Wonderful speakers in a wonderful room with a wonderful front and and amplification. Then you are forced to start taking things away and replace them with entry level stuff one by one. Where do you start, what is the last thing? Maybe you start with cables or power conditioning. along with some tweaks. Then sell the DCS Vivaldi stack and get a decent DAC. At the end... Sell the $330,000 Wilson Chronosonics or get rid of the room treatments? Of course you keep the speakers , you keep the most critical component... case closed , and I'm outta here |
and if you hire an expert in room acoustics the room is also very easyI created my own "mechanical equalizer" which act on the room being part of it...It was not easy like buying speakers... AND you can mitigate the room by listening in the near field ... .It is not true i know it because all change in my room act on the nearfield listening... Save perhaps with big speakers in a small room but even with it then the room would not be able to help the speakers ....Speakers size must be in relation with the room.... Start at the other end... envision the perfect system.To win your point you start with a costly system, most people dont own costly system... Anyway i state my point and i dont doubt that your sound is very good your speakers also.... But all my system will be crap for you seeing it with a value of 500 bucks all in all... I can assure you that my S.Q. will surprize you thanks to acoustic control.... Try my test with Kurt Weill and listen the singers ....If they comes from your back where there is no speakers then the room is not only good BUT under controls.... If not, the sound is good but the room is not under controls... Simple.... A room under controls must recreate the original acoustic settings of the live event when recorded.... The critical component for me is the room.... And for sure for someone owning for example some speakers costing 100,000 bucks, the thing to keep is the speakers not the room.... But when we speak about critical component with speak about what is critic S.Q. wise not about money.... I listen to a system on the net youtube the owner brag about it because its value is one million dollars...Mine value is 500 bucks... Do you think he will not be angry by my observation? One thing is sure this man put his system in an undercontrolled room and the sound is unnatural....Not musical...Very detailed....Even through my own system..... Then.....People confuse details and quality, and often spectacular constrast in sound with timbre naturalness.... This one million dollars system is in a good room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7lxYAaJ_oo&t=457s This one million dollars system is in a bad room : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr8O_jZhpl4 What is the most critical component here? The room..... |
Try my test with Kurt Weill and listen the singers ....If they comes from your back where there is no speakers then the room is not only good BUT under controls. I'm done with the "most critical component" discussion. But I'm curious how you determined that this test proves your point? The recording you reference is not live. It is a studio recording so there is no "back of the room" as far as the recording is concerned. Any effect of depth and width of soundstage is artificially mixed into the recording so it seems to me you really can't have any confidence what you are using as your reference is accurate or what was intended. Maybe they wanted it to sound like the singers are out in front of the orchestra? |
I listen to the singers walking on the scene in the studio and even turning their head while singing then their voice increasing or decreasing in loudness...... Any effect of depth and width of soundstage is artificially mixed into the recording so it seems to me you really can’t have any confidence what you are using as your reference is accurate or what was intended. Maybe they wanted it to sound like the singers are out in front of the orchestra?The singers voices are around me, in front of me, and many times comes from behind my head in songs number 15-16-17... In a non controlled room you will always listen to them in front of you not coming from behind your head... Here i discover on the net what someone with a bad system or a bad room says of this very good recording: « Don’t bother at this stage with the 1958 German language STEREO version with Lotte Lenya conducted by Wilhelm Brückner-Ruggeberg. It was weakly recorded, too much echo,» What he confuse with "echo" is the walking speed and changes of position while singing of the singers...They move constantly on the stage or in the studio and their head is never fixed but turn right or left singing or speaking... It is easy to hear...In a good room we SEE the singers... It is one of my best recording.... Anyway i wish you the best and your speakers by the way seems marvellous.... My deepest respect.... |
Frankly, all components are important; in a system, a stereo system, it is the system that brings sonic enjoyment. Have a weak part even in a top notch system, and the system is only as good as the less than stellar component. Here is my story... some years ago, I settled on Pass Aleph 1.2 mono's for my amp, then I got Von Schweikert VR-6 speakers. My source was a Nakamichi Dragon CD player, and my line stage was first a Adcom something, then a Sonic Frontiers SF-2. I still couldn't understand why my system wasn't singing like it should. Finally, my stereo guy said, ditch the SF-2 and get a Pass X0.2, a three box line stage, which was just introduced. I did, and once that was in, the heavens opened up and my system was, at least in my opinion, making some very fine music! My past line stage choices were not up to snuff; at the time, I didn't think a line stage would be such an influencing piece to the puzzle, but it is. Frankly, in a system, it ALL is. Just get the best stuff you can afford, and work with a stereo guy who'll work with you, meaning let you listen to it because listening to it is where the proof in the pudding is. Anyways, happy hunting in your quest to assemble your ultimate two channel system. |
What he confuse with "echo" is the walking speed and changes of position while singing of the singers...They move constantly on the stage or in the studio and their head is never fixed but turn right or left singing or speaking... It is easy to hear...In a good room we SEE the singers... I’m glad you enjoy this recording so much, but your conclusions about what is correct are nothing more than guesses. By manipulating the phase of the signal from various microphones while panning them left - right - left the person mastering the recording can create the illusion of movement when the singer is standing in one spot behind the microphone. I’m not saying this happened, I have no idea how it was recorded, but given it is a studio recording it is unlikely the singers were moving about the room, but perhaps they were. It is also impossible to create a 3 dimensional soundstage (sounds from behind or outside the speakers) without manipulating the signal. Listen to a recording by Steve Swallow called "Running in the Family" on his album Deconstructed. His bass is waaaaay off to the side completely disengaged from the rest of the music. It is so pronounced I find it difficult to listen to. This effect is created by shifting the phase of the signals in the left and right channels after it is recorded.. Note the word "created." If the same sound arrives at one ear later than the other, (phase shifted) our brain interprets this as the signal coming from the direction of the ear where it first arrives. By manipulating the phase and amplitude of the bass in the 2 channels it can be "pushed" off to the side. So I agree that if your system/room has issues with phase shifts it will change how the sound is produced, but we have no way to know if what we are hearing is an accurate representation of what happened unless we were there. It seldom is and definitely is not if you hear sounds from behind you. How do you know your system isn't phase shifting some frequencies more than others and exaggerating these effects? Frankly, all components are important; duh Of course a system is a sum of its parts. That’s not the point of the thread. I settled on Pass Aleph 1.2 mono’s for my amp, then I got Von Schweikert VR-6 speakers. so you did it backwards. . The point is, various electronics are much more alike than different while speakers vary widely. So find speakers you like then optimize the rest. Matching speakers to amps is a fools game.. sorry to be blunt but can’t come up with a nicer word than fools at the moment |
How do you know your system isn’t phase shifting some frequencies more than others and exaggerating these effects? It is easy to use a test to verify... https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_polaritycheck.php It is also impossible to create a 3 dimensional soundstage (sounds from behind or outside the speakers) without manipulating the signal. It is possible when someone use simple acoustic laws.. For example tresholds of timing linked to the first wavefront law https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223804282_The_relation_between_spatial_impression_and_the_law_of_the_first_wavefront I use my homemade mechanical equalizer to do it and my Schumann generators grid with the appropriate passive room treatment... But passive material room treatment is ONLY half of my acoustical settings... The more important half is the mechanical 32 tubes and pipes Helmholtz equalizer tuned for the room... I use it in a way to reinforce the first frontwave law for each speaker....And the Schumann generators grid is a complementary help to create this holographic effect... Some company sell costly device to do it with radio frequencies like the shumann generator frequencies... But i never bought any tweaks i prefer to replicate them at no cost...I called this the three controls over the working three embeddings dimension for any audio system: mechanical : ( i use an original method of my own to tune my speakers with springs) electrical: ( i use my own homemade device all along the electrical grid of my house the "golden plates") and for acoustic:( many devices but the most important being a couple of cheap ionizers, S.G. grid, and H. M. equalizer + regular passive teatment balanced between reflective,absorbing and diffusive effects).. My system value is 500 bucks and all my device controls cost me peanuts... You forget also that owning near 10,000 files if these artificial effects were only artefacts regularly used i will listen to them on many other files....(Like in some electronic music....I dont like electronic music and listen mainly jazz and especially classical....) They really walked and turned their heads singing in the studio and the final impression is like a real event... I feel this impression of 3-d with others classical very good recordings....For example i can " see" the hands of an harpsichordist on his instrument 3-d like if the instrument were in the room... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R0eCGPhXko But the sound of this youtube file is horrible....I own ALL the cd she played with his marvellous instrument very well recorded all his Bach recordings...I know this file from the time i was 20 years old to this day70 years old.... This cd was never 3-d holographic 50 years ago even coming from better speakers my Tannoy dual Gold compared to my actual Mission Cyrus 781....but acoustic is more powerful than speakers specs differences between 2 good speakers .... Now I listen all the pedals strokes and slidings,frictions, of the feet and of the mechanical inside the instrument...The instrument is spread our like a 3-d object in front of me out of the speakers not between it, but in front of it and spread it slightly behind the speakers with the keyboard where his hands walk and plays in some "diagonal" spread, the head part of the wood keyboard in front and the end tail behind the speakers... Same thing with Vladimir Feltsman well tempered Klavier where the piano is in the room completely and fill it wall to wall... Samething with Chopin piano Nocturnes recording by Ivan Moravec .... I will stop here.... Regards and best wishes... |
If you calculate with the speed of sound in a room you will discover that reflected late and early waves mix in the brain with direct waves coming from the speakers under the critical treshold of 80 milliseconds... Then nearfield listening is not immune at all from the room characteristic.... I verified this myself by many experiments listening always in the 2 positions nearfield and regular in my own room.... The scale from totally bad speakers to very top high good speakers is a LARGE scale.... The acoustical settings of a room can help and put some intermediary relatively good speakers nearer to the top S.Q. at no cost... A room must be mechanically tuned for a specific pair of speakers....I dont use electronic tuning or equalization of speakers from the room response... I prefer to use each speaker to change the room.... Acoustic is not magic but almost..... |
@mahgister have you any experience with time aligned speakers? Vandersteen, etc.No not at all.... Vandersteen price are 39,000 US bucks..... 😁😁😁🙄 All my system cost 500 bucks... I dont doubt that they are extraordinary... Myself i use the timing of the sound waves in the room and i use the direct sound of each speaker but with for each speaker different resonant tube and pipes near them to gives some acoustical cues for the ears that make able my brain to create a 3-d holographic space...It is a success... At peanuts costs... |
Garbage in = garbage out is a red herring.. even entry level source and amps are pretty good.. therefore there is no "garbage in". There is a little bit better in, there is I like the sound of that in a little better than another in, but there is no garbage in. Sorry, doesn‘t cut it. if you‘re going to dismiss a philosophy you‘re going to have to come up with something a little bit more convincing. I have heard a pretty good argument. The posts on this thread thread appear to have deviated considerably from commenting specifically on the original poster’s postulate. In my opinion it would be considerably more interesting if subsequent posts were to concentrate on the issue at hand. |
herman Garbage in = garbage out is a red herring.. even entry level source and amps are pretty good.. therefore there is no "garbage in". There is a little bit better in, there is I like the sound of that in a little better than another in, but there is no garbage in ... end of debate, you can close this threadNot so fast. You're insisting that everyone accept your values at the expense of their own. But what you call "a little bit better" is completely subjective. Some might not hear any difference at all in your "little bit better" while others might consider what you call a "little bit" to be a very big deal, indeed. The notion that your opinion represents the "end of the debate" is really silly. |
The idea that speakers is the most important part of a system is not an absolute... There is, for most of us, ordinary owner of ordinary speakers, under 10,000 bucks, a more important factor, the room acoustic controls that can help or impede, or compensate in some degree for the limitations related to any "ordinary" speakers.... My 10,000 bucks borderline limit is arbitrary but the fact i pointed to is not... We listened not to speakers but to a room integrated to the speakers.... the 2 are ONE organ producing the 2 different acoustically mixed frontwaves of sound which each one of our ears will process for the brain to create music body.... Imaging, listener envelopment factor or LEV are related on timing tresholds linked to these 2 frontwaves interacting coming from each speaker...There are "more" power related to acoustic than to the spec sheets of the speakers... Timbre perception will greatly be affected also by the distribution of the pressure zones in the room related to his geometry, topology but also to the timing of the frontwaves but also to their crossing of different pressure zones... Acoustic is queen, the sleeping princess, speakers are only the biggest of the 7 dwarves... For most of us, owning normal speakers at normal price, the room acoustical settings will determine our impression about speakers more than any other factors in play.... Average Speakers are like average headphones, they all have many problems that are linked to the shell/room controls.... The only "relative" apparent exception are some very costly headphone or speakers set that are out of reach of most average users anyway....They can sound good in spite of some acoustical property of the room or less limited by their "shell" particular design.... |
@herman This thread is weird isn't it. I don't think anyone discounts the importance of fixing acoustics if you are not listening near field, but if this was any time before about 1990(ish), there would be no discussion at all. Speakers would be the critical component and almost no one would dispute it. It shows the power of marketing though. If you are not a speaker manufacturer, there is motivated self interest to create artificial importance in a whole range of products both those that can make some difference, and some that are highly questionable. It sells magazines, it generates clicks, it supports manufacturing companies, etc. Only thing it has not done, it appears, it resulted in a focus on better sound. A concerted effort to eliminate any form of critical evaluation was the last nail needed to seal the coffin. Now we don't even have to worry about the outlandish claims, we will just blame the listener. |
First i dont promote the buying of costly tweaks... We can replace most of them or replicate them at no cost... I did it myself... The results are complete transformation of my average system....I speak about a conplete transformation after a hundred of small modifications in the 3 working embeddings dimensions here, not about a borderline audible effect needing blindtest to be confirmed like in a cable swapping marketing operation.... 😁 My own acoustical controls cost me nothing... 😊 This thread is weird isn’t it. I don’t think anyone discounts the importance of fixing acoustics if you are not listening near field, 🙄 Second, relatively to the room size and the particular speakers, nearfield listening is not immune at all to the acoustical settings of the room...It is a pretext in audio thread which falsely rassure those who think that no acoustic settings is necessary when nearfield..... It is not the case in samall room but for sure many distance lenght factors and particularities of the speakers specs. enter in consideration.... BUT in my own 13 feet small room ANY change in the acoustic settings reflect in my near listening ( 3 feet from the 2 speakers....) ANY change are audible..... Not at the same level nor in the same way that in regular listening (8 feet) but any acoustical change like introducing a new pressure zone will be audible nearfield... It is easy to figure out with the speed of sound and the size of the room, and the relation between the millisecond limit treshold for the brain to treat acoustic cues and the number of times the frontwaves cross the room before the brain react... The speakers are the main "solid" component , nobody can contest that.... BUT the room acoustic in most of the case is more important .... It is simple to understand why.... What is weird is the people superstition for the "solid" product they personaly favored or owned or sells.... My system is 500 bucks value , and will never be upgraded, because i dont feel i need to, he does not sound like a 500 hundred bucks system, thanks to my embeddings controls especially the acoustic controls.... All my embeddings controls are homemade and cost almost nothing.... My system is not the best and i NEVER boast about it, i sell creativity and common sense.... Acoustic is the key to audio by the way we record and by the way we listen to music.... Is it not simple? The rest of the story is good or bad marketing practise with good or less good products... I prefer to promote homemade embeddings controls, and creativity and common sense because any system works in three dimension where it needed to be controlled; basic acoustic science is the most important factor between all those.... 😊 |
dletch2... I don't think anyone discounts the importance of fixing acoustics if you are not listening near field, but if this was any time before about 1990(ish), there would be no discussion at all. Speakers would be the critical component and almost no one would dispute it ...Huh? What magical event do you think happened around 1990-ish? Did it change the orbit of the earth or something like that? ... If you are not a speaker manufacturer, there is motivated self interest to create artificial importance in a whole range of products ... Only thing it has not done, it appears, it resulted in a focus on better sound.So you don't think anything in audio has improved since 1990-ish? That's pretty silly. |
Huh? What magical event do you think happened around 1990-ish? Did it change the orbit of the earth or something like that? Earlier mistakes w.r.t. THD while ignoring IMD were recognized, fixed the most egregious problems with digital, shift to portable listening habits, MP3 in the mid-90s, demographic shifts, off-shore manufacturing, you name it. It all resulted in a commodification of audio with less emphasis on high end and less "real" things to sell to audiophiles/budding audiophiles. So you don't think anything in audio has improved since 1990-ish? That's pretty silly. Coming to that conclusion is pretty silly, but look at amplifiers, most of the "improvements", except Class-D, would fall under art, not engineering, i.e. voiced for a particular target listener. Sure there are ever more expensive units every year, but pick two with the same design goals, and you would have a hard time telling apart a 30 year old and 3 year old one. Old is new w.r.t. tubes, which comes down to preference, not engineering. Digital has plateaued effectively for some time, though, again, voiced products result in differentiated sales, but not an advance in state of the art, no matter the level of special pleading. One area that has probably advanced is power delivery, but is that due to poor product design? |
The posts on this thread thread appear to have deviated considerably from commenting specifically on the original poster’s postulate. In my opinion it would be considerably more interesting if subsequent posts were to concentrate on the issue at hand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hey Pesky Thanks for the REFOCUING of the main issues here. Which can be stated as 1) can anyone provide evidence that a low db speaker is tube friendly? 2) which other speaker design will out perform a FR/Compression tweet with tube amplification? Folks are posting opinions which have nothing whatsoever to do with these 2 crucial/critical/yet unresolved questions Neither of which has been presented to the audiophile community , at least not as clean, concise as I have. WE are in consideration of the performance of a tube amplification, , specifically which sytle of engineering designs will best suit the requirements of tube amplification. Most are just ranting and raving opinions which have nothing at all to do with this critical question. I am not going to rehash what I wrote above. Only those who have actual experience with FR , canunderstand many valid points i raise in my posts. If audiophiles wish to hang on to old rusty, crusty ideas about tube amplification and speakers required, go right ahead, Remain in lala land. You are missing out on acheiving high fidelity, which is the gaol of our hobby. My wife suggests i wait til i have cash for the real deal, Berlin FR and pass up on the 2 chinese labs making clones of the Berlin :abs FR. This is the road i will take, It will be some time before i can recover from the $1800 Thor upgrade disaster. Box/xover designs are worthless trash AFAIC Seas, Scanspeak, Troels Gravesen are all working with old dated trash technology. |
I‘m going to throw in the ‘weakest link‘ philosophy, although I have no personal attachment.
~~~~~ Richard Gray loaned me his baby Gray, a modded Dyanco EL35 from the 70's. Closely matched the Jadis Defy7 which retailed for $9k. Just about any well designed tube amp will do, but as for speakers, Only FR will meet the requirements to voice tube amplification. |
OK I‘ll nail my colours to the mast: my primary directive is ’garbage in garbage out‘, with ’weakest link’ lurking in the background. By that I mean that the source should always take precedence, and that a top down hierarchy is justified. However, in pursuit of this ideal gross imbalances in the system should not be tolerated. Give me your best shot. |
Can't agree with that pesky, as what ultimately comes out the end is a combination of additive error and multiplicative error. The additive error of speakers far outweighs the additive error of the source multiplied by everything that happens after it. IMHO I will give you, for vinyl at least, that your source may alter the sound significantly enough, in a way that is highly pleasing to you, just as a tube amp may, and I could see circumstances where that is essential, at the individual level, to give a level of precedence. However, I feel that the speakers would need to be of sufficient quality before that became dominant. I can also accept that the combination of a tube amplifier and speaker could alter the sound enough to be accepted as an inseparable unit, at least for an individual who likes the result. |
so you did it backwards. . The point is, various electronics are much more alike than different while speakers vary widely
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BINGO My Shanling 3000 is onlya miniscule gain over the Cayin 17 The Jadis JS 2 Mark2 is onlya miniscule gain over the Shanling, I could easily,,well, lets say I perfer the nuances of the JS2 Mark2. But then I perfer my Philips 777 phono over the Jadis DAC/cd experience. The Defy7, I could find at least 3,4,5 other tube amps at alot less cash, satisfied. Spaekers, Seas offers the highest fidelity speakers in the EXCEL line in the Thors. Voice the female jazz cds like live sound stage. Very low distortion at low gain. bass likea sub woofer with the new Mundorf <<beasty>> caps. Midrange not muddy, not warm. at low/mid gain. So you ask, then what is it that a single 6.5 Diatone FR did which made me realize Richard Gray was right alllll along bugging me about the Thors = The wrong speaker for the Defy7. I had no idea what this sensitivity spec was all about. When I hooked up the FR on one channel, the Thor on the other,,and fliped the balance , right to left and back,. It was all clear, a true revelation. After I disconnected the Thor, I listed them here and other sites. Cheap, so far no offers, and not going to get any offers, those dinasaurs are going to Richard's chop shop and the components dumped on ebay for pennies on the $. My purpose here is only to expose the old technology vs the new technology. The 1970's box/xover speaker thing, grew deep roots in my ideas as what a speaker should be all about. FR will be my only choice as its the speaker made for all tube amplification. Richard did not help me at all to come to this realization, He was all over the place with suggestions, nothing about FR. This was all, 100% my research and my hard won experience. No one has to follow any of my conclusions, But think about it, ask yourself,, am I stuck in old ideas about what a speaker is all about. If you get the feeling what once was my love and respect for box/xover designs, has now fliped over to , being a basher and a hater of that technoology. You are correct. I HATE The Seas Thors. I hate all Troels Gravensen designs to boot. |
before that became dominant. I can also accept that the combination of a tube amplifier and speaker could alter the sound enough to be accepted as an inseparable unit,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ All tube amplification must, w/o exception, be paired with a FR/Horn tweet. Tube amps(SET/Pushpull etc) will not perform/work/function without a FR employed.. This is a cardinal rule which can not be compromised in any other speaker design. Tube amplification + FR, = 2 sides of the same coin. |
You know my argument is really not too difficult to follow along. 1970s,80,s90;s, 2000, 2010, we are well into the 21st Century. The 1970's speakers served us well. But its high time Seas and Scan Speak delete their entire inventory of any and all drivers which are not 94+ db rated. Yeah I know , thats like 99% of their production. Which is why the 1 lab that will prosper over the next 50+ years is Voxativ, All others will have to play catch-up, but its doubtful Seas and Scan Speak will be around much longer. I say to both labs , you served us well, RIP |
All others will have to play catch-up, but its doubtful Seas and Scan Speak will be around much longer. You were doing so well, then the deep end you fell off of. Much work has been done in the last 30 years to reduce impact of thermal compression from voice coil/magnet structure heating. That will continue. Seas and Scan Speak both are still viewed as making some of the best drivers on the planet. That is not likely to change any time soon. Single full range dynamic drivers, ala Voxatif have one large, unavoidable and limiting issue. Doppler distortion. They solve one issue and create another one. I am hoping for direct brain interface in <50 years. |
| Post removed |
that is so easy it is not a "shot". There is so little "garbage in" it can be ignored. I have a Raspberry Pi with a HiFiBerry DAC running off of a wall wart power supply. Somewhere in the $100 range. Currently have a $10K Denafrips DAC and DDC, I've had a $30K DCS Rossini with clock, A $15K Chord DAVE with Mscaler with linear DC supplies, and others.. The more expensive are clearly better, but the Pi sounds really good and is nowhere near garbage. So the source can in no way be considered the most critical component. Weakest linkis off topic, the thread is supposed to be about "the single most critical component." By definition "single" means one which eliminates links from the discussion. @Mozartfan, you win the prize for the longest most rambling posts... hands down... but I have a question what is this FR you keep going on and on about? When I googled "Berlin FR" I found in one of your diatribes I got something about a German farmers market and a German Ford dealer. |
DOAH !!! FR = Full Range .. HA! I get it unfortunately, despite your passion, you are incorrect. Full range drivers as dletch2 pointed out are inherently flawed, just like all speakers are inherently flawed. This is the reason they are the most critical component. Obviously you prefer to live with the flaws inherent in FR drivers. However, others prefer to live with the flaws in other designs.. my preference is horns as you can see from my system. Modern day sources and amplifiers are approaching perfection relative to what has been achieved with speakers therefore one must choose a speaker they are willing to tolerate and then feed it with whatever maximizes its strengths and minimizes its weaknesses. It really is irrefutable... you are welcome |
FR = Full Range .. HA! I get it unfortunately, despite your passion, you are incorrect. Full range drivers as dletch2 pointed out are inherently flawed, just like all speakers are inherently flawed. This is the reason they are the most critical component. Obviously you prefer to live with the flaws inherent in FR drivers. However, others prefer to live with the flaws in other designs.. my preference is horns as you can see from my system. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You beat me to this valid assesstion of Quote *FULL RANGE* This very thought occured to me, just now while having morning coffee, and now i see your post, which has validity, but must be examined carefully. FR = not full range. There is a post above somewhere on this topic, a member has tried them all, and from exp , suggests all FR need a additive tweet. No big de4al. Yep you heard me right no big crisis there. *Flaws* I've only heard this chinese clone of Diatone 6.5, In my YT vid I exclim has all things, highs, mids, bass. Thats not true, has bass, has mids, highs are rolled off.Terribly, No big complaint from me, AS classical muisc is 90% and in fact most music is 90% midrange, HOWEVER to have jazz/female vocals to have proper *ambience** you absoluetly must have shimmering/crystline sonics in the upper registers. Otherwise ya ain't got nothing. Simple solution, \add a 21st Century tweeter. Issue resolved. TI Compression horn which can be found in the hundreds of offerings , from super budget to braek the bank priced. Compression tweets are the finest driver in high fq's, 2nd to none So we will have the Midrange/bass fq's being voiced by the so misnomer driver *The Full Range* and the high fq's being delivered by the world calss , super high fidelity, 21st C driver = The Compression Horn There now argue your case that all speakers are flawed. Which is both true and not true. Box/xover/Seas ScanSpeaks/Troels Gravensen are flawed to the point they are now The Dinasaur line of <,THe Wet Blanket> experience in speakers. THese old flawed low efficient speakers are not just flawed, but useless when heard next to just about any *Fukll Range/TI Compression* set up. This is the point of my entire postings. Flawed yes they are, HOWEVER that minisclue lack of high fq's can be easily overcome addinga TI Horn,. Whereas low efficient speakers, the flaws are glaring, permament, and worthless when paired with any tube amplification system. Cables, wires, sources, amps, boutique caps, boutique resistors, go ahead and tweak all, You will only gaina Mini-Scule nuance in each component over low price to high priced. Speakers , now here is the Elephant in the room nuance/tweak. Speakers are everything when pair with tube amplification. Full Range is a misnomer, Yet at least there is no wet blanket over the music such as any speaker with lower than 90db will offer. Which is why my threshold point in sens is 94db/higher. This elimintes all traditional box/xover style The Dinasaurs. I rest my case. |
Obviously you prefer to live with the flaws inherent in FR drivers. However, others prefer to live with the flaws in other designs..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vs the blaring, obnoxious, horrid, flaws of the traditional box xover designs, Yes I can happily , comfortably, enJOYably listen to the flaws in the FR design. |
Mr Mozart... we may differ on details but fundamentally agree. The path to the truth for me is highly efficient speakers and low powered amplifiers. That has led me to the horns I have today which are around 110dB efficient
Perfect? .. no People who say horns blare or honk are misinformed, mostly parroting what they’ve read as they have obviously never heard a properly designed and implemented horn system. If I didn’t have the space for the horns I would go with a so called full range driver like a Lowther or other similar design perhaps supplemented by a horn tweeter as you suggest. In any case, we agree that low efficiency, multi driver speakers in boxes with complex crossovers unsuccessfully trying to get them integrated is not the way to go |
In any case, we agree that low efficiency, multi driver speakers in boxes with complex crossovers unsuccessfully trying to get them integrated is not the way to go
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WEll yes and no, This speaker discussion is a tricky argument. AT this point i owe Troels Gravensen a apology, Treols does in fact offer a few of his designs with 92db box/xover designs. So my Thors are 87 which is rediculously low, His 92db are acceptable and may be of some interest to those not willing to go FR/Horn. My listening room is 10x12, I can not employa huge horn 3 way system and HUGE sound stage is not my goal, Easy listening , no fatigue is my goal. I'm guessing your 3 way horn system is highly accurate with stunning sound stage, But the size and most important the weight. A single 8 inch FR can be built usinga snaded plywood cabinet, UNDER!!!! 40 lbs each. HUGE benifit from a low weight, small framce speaker, Here is where Troels gets in trouble with his 2 offerings of 92db speakers, The size and WEIGHT, Some of us are getting up in age and we have no use for any speaker over say,,,50 lbs. The Thors come in at 60 lbs, just ridiculous. Not sure what Troels weight comes in at but they sure look heavy..and the price? = $$$$$$$$$ Lets go see http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/CNO-4.htm Ohh look Troels is using the SEAS Cresendo tweet, SEas flagship which is NOT 92db, more like 87 or 89, so not sure where he is getting hhis 92db out of this speaker, Weight? Does not say,,looks like she's a 100+ pounder, 60 lbs over my threshold. + the price? does not say, To havea local carpenter to build that exact cabinet $3k + the xovers/drivers , add another $3k+ so lets say $6k fora *92db* box/xover style speaker, VS Voxativ's 96db AC1C single driver. @ $1900, build your own cabinet @ $100. weight, under 50 lbs. Troels does very nice speakers in his lab, thing is they are dated vs the new technology from Voxativ. Voxativ allows the music to flow naturally, you connect to the sound as if it is alive, a living presence. Troel's designs sounds like music comming froma box. It attacks you. Mostly due to the low 92 db sensitivity. Yeah 92db is low in my book. The Golden Threshold is 94db. |
