ZSeems the SET amplification has been officially coveted as the only amplification for the task.All this agonising over amplifiers, which in the end, basically all sound the same? ’SET amplification has officially been coveted as the only amplification for the task‘. Dig the pompous nomenclature - Kinda makes amplifier choice crucial to the system performance in my book.
But there are draw backs with the SETs. They do not produce music likea PP can in certain complex, hard driven signals.
They can get overwhelmed witha single 845 trying to master all the complexities thrown its way.
PP has the muscle to channel all that high voltage music.
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 posts total
- 353 posts total