High Performance Audio - The End?

@douglas_schroeder , you’re wrong on all counts again Doug.

I am the kinda guy who likes to add and reap the benefits of good subs to a 80k TAD or a Revel or a Wilson or other $$$$speakers out there that claim to be full range. I add subs to a 5k speaker (the Adante), use the same electronics on it that i use on speakers that cost magnitudes more and had a realization that it sounds better than the speaker that costs magnitudes more. You, on the other hand, sound like the kinda guy who would pay 80k for a supposedly "full range" speaker, not add subs and have a inferior listening experience.

I know what a 120k system sounds like in my house. When i stop by my doc’s house and listen to his 4.5k Moab paired with his electronics, i hear everything in his setup that i’m looking for in a system that costs magnitudes more. I don’t have to bring that Moab into my house and A/B it on my gear to certify that it sounds like something that costs magnitudes more.

You sound like the kinda guy who would claim a) there is no difference in competence levels among engineers who design these things and b) there are no diminishing returns in this vulture filled industry. You "get what you pay for" he says!!...Go fool the intellectually challenged goats with fat wallets out there with that crap. I have a feeling that’s your line of work. In fact, you state you have neither heard the Adante or the Moab in a competent setup, but, you’re quick to run your mouth like some all knowing seer eh Doug?

Put 20 engineers in a room. You think all 20 of them have the same aptitude because they went to the same frat, have the same degree and exposure to the industry? No Dougy no, there’s always a genius and a ’non value added’ cretin in that pool, when you’re trying to run a business.

You’re wrong on all counts again Douglas.

Steve's point, and it's one I've seen mentioned many times previously at shows and demos, is that better more revealing systems will often only serve to make most recordings sound worse.

Regarding this comment, I've found that the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial. However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse. So IME some real scrutiny has to be applied to what is considered 'more revealing'!

@prof,

'It sounds, though, like you are mostly satisfied with your Tannoys?'


I'd say so. The Berkeley's can play almost anything without making me reach for the remote on purely sonic grounds alone. Previous speaker more or less forced me to search for upgrades - mainly with lack of bass or treble issues.

For sure I'd be happy with a pair of loudspeakers that maintained (or even built upon their strengths of cohesiveness and ease) but disappeared (box-wise) a little better. 

In particular I'd like to hear some good open baffle designs, or even some maverick designs like the Tekton Moab's or the Ohm Walsh's.

Recently, after years of prejudice, I've taken to have another think about metal drivers and particularly their capabilities in the midrange. Especially after seeing how their use is becoming increasingly common in highly regarded designs such as the likes of the Joseph Audio Pulsars and Linkwitz LX521.4s etc.


@atmasphere,

'I've found that the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial. However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse.'

Earlier today I was playing Matt Monro's The Singer's Singer CD (allegedly the best mastering of his work taken from the best generation tapes available) and frankly some the tracks were barely acceptable on sonic grounds alone.

Some of the songs are simply sublime but great recordings these are not. In particular their bandwidth seemed somewhat compromised, with a less than stellar signal to noise ratio present too. 

So I couldn't but wonder whether better speakers (more treble, more bass, a clearer window?) wouldn't just highlight these deficiencies further rather than illuminate their strengths in a better light.

Perhaps, as you say "..the better systems that are also very transparent will not make a bad recording worse, they simply play it without editorial." is true.

It would be nice to think that way. 

"However, if something is amiss in the system, then the recordings may well sound worse. So IME some real scrutiny has to be applied to what is considered 'more revealing'!"

Maybe this very important need for careful considered system matching is a kind of consensus we can settle upon. 

Perhaps this also goes some way towards explaining why system building can often take a considerable amount time and care, and not to mention - money.

A wrong step, however exalted and recommended it might be, can easily lead to eventual dissatisfaction if it brings along with it it's own 'editorial' preferences.

As @prof said earlier, real progress in understanding can easily get hampered by an increasingly vague and personalised description which itself becomes subject to an increasingly wider range of interpretation.

Largely relevant only to its originator.

No wonder they don't award any Pulitzer prizes for audio journalism.

Not when the limits of language itself will inevitably drag us back into the realms of subjective interpretation.

It's an unfortunate fact of the human condition that experience translated into words and back into experience seems to incur even more losses than any analogue to digital to analogue conversion.

cd218,

Recently, after years of prejudice, I’ve taken to have another think about metal drivers and particularly their capabilities in the midrange.

I can understand the trepidation and prejudice. I’ve experienced it in the past too. My overriding first criteria is that my system sound "organic" - wood like wood, flesh like flesh - rather than cold, sterile and having an electronic or metallic quality.

I’ve long had Spendor S3/5s and an even older pair of Thiel 02 speakers, which were a plain box speaker Thiel sold before going all time/phase coherent. It uses paper drivers/soft dome. Both those speakers just exemplify the "organic" sound quality I love.

For me it was the Hales Transcendence speakers back in the late 90’s that blew some of my expectations out of the water regarding metal drivers. I ended up with the Hales Transcendence 5 speakers and they were so rich, timbrally colorful, and relaxed. I still actually use Hales speakers for my home theater for that very quality.

What was interesting for me was upon listening to the Joseph speakers, instantly recognizing a similar quality to the Hales - a richness of timbral color with a particularly smooth, grain-free sound. Both use the similar looking Seas midrange/woofer drivers, so it’s hard for me not to intuit there is something about the quality of those drivers bringing something to the party.


Any lingering prejudiced against metal drivers was removed when I got the Thiel 3.7 and currently 2.7 speakers in my system, using Thiels final in-house designed aluminum drivers. When driven my by CJ amps the sound is lush and organic. There isn’t a hint of metal anywhere I can detect in the sound.

"When i stop by my doc’s house..."

In old days, doctors would make house calls. These days patients do house calls?