|
Post by tchaik on May 3, 2019 18:10:40 GMT -5
Forgot to point out, I am strongly of the belief that not only do people have differing opinions and personal preferences as to what sounds good, I also believe people actually hear differently. For one example, I have smallish size ears, very flat against my head, and small ear canals. I can't imagine some guy with huge ears sticking out from his head and large ear canals hears the same. I also want it made clear, I am in no way bashing anyone for the speakers they like or don't like. Speakers are all about preference, what you need, where you are using them, what you are listening to, and how much money you want to spend. There is no perfect speaker, nor is there a best speaker. There is only a best speaker for you. bonzo, you are absolutely correct in that people hear differently due to physiological, biological, cognitive, psychological, sociological and environmental reasons (as well as many others not listed here). as a music prof I have read some research on this yet I would guess that the body of research is growing and will give further evidence as to why so many of us can agree on so little when it comes to our preferences as to how the best systems should sound. in other words... we all be a little deaf............
|
|
|
Post by HunTer on May 3, 2019 20:59:32 GMT -5
Forgot to point out, I am strongly of the belief that not only do people have differing opinions and personal preferences as to what sounds good, I also believe people actually hear differently. For one example, I have smallish size ears, very flat against my head, and small ear canals. I can't imagine some guy with huge ears sticking out from his head and large ear canals hears the same. I also want it made clear, I am in no way bashing anyone for the speakers they like or don't like. Speakers are all about preference, what you need, where you are using them, what you are listening to, and how much money you want to spend. There is no perfect speaker, nor is there a best speaker. There is only a best speaker for you. bonzo, you are absolutely correct in that people hear differently due to physiological, biological, cognitive, psychological, sociological and environmental reasons (as well as many others not listed here). as a music prof I have read some research on this yet I would guess that the body of research is growing and will give further evidence as to why so many of us can agree on so little when it comes to our preferences as to how the best systems should sound. in other words... we all be a little deaf............ EMOTIVA RETHINK . . . LOUDSPEAKERS (in development) The future will be here soon: T2PCL (Personal Custom Loudspeakers) We guarantee there wil be infinitive ones for everyone hearing taste At the checkout, just customize yours according your ...head & ears size & canals deep🤣😂
|
|
|
Post by widespreadpanic on May 28, 2019 16:36:35 GMT -5
Ha. Received an email from Old Dominion stating confirmation of them having picked up the speakers!
|
|
|
Post by pop on May 28, 2019 19:41:41 GMT -5
Live Panic on the pendragons was the best I ever heard. Since you’re a fellow fan
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on May 28, 2019 20:43:46 GMT -5
Ha. Received an email from Old Dominion stating confirmation of them having picked up the speakers! Congrats! Wish I had a place for 3.7s in a 2 channel room.
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on May 28, 2019 22:03:45 GMT -5
Is that Keith rocking the boat again? Yeah Maggie's are the sensurround of speakers. Great if you love landscapes of music. Not great for picking out an address. Klipsch is one of those where when done well, they entertain no end. Horns aren't for everyone. Kind of makes it more fun. I heard Klipschs' once knock it out of the park. It was a very long time ago. But it was proof that Paul Klipsch was no dummy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Try reading the book about him and adjust your bias accordingly. Then there is your tube amp.😁😁😁😁😁🙃🙃🙃🙃
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 28, 2019 23:25:41 GMT -5
Is that Keith rocking the boat again? Yeah Maggie's are the sensurround of speakers. Great if you love landscapes of music. Not great for picking out an address. Klipsch is one of those where when done well, they entertain no end. Horns aren't for everyone. Kind of makes it more fun. I heard Klipschs' once knock it out of the park. It was a very long time ago. But it was proof that Paul Klipsch was no dummy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Try reading the book about him and adjust your bias accordingly. Then there is your tube amp.😁😁😁😁😁🙃🙃🙃🙃 But Keith doesn't like tube amps.🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by vcautokid on May 29, 2019 2:25:47 GMT -5
Yep tubes are not in Keith's Lexicon.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by KeithL on May 29, 2019 8:53:11 GMT -5
I realized I haven't been back here in a while.....
Speakers I've owned and really liked.....
- In the distant past I've owned Advent Larger's, and some KLH's, and some small Infinitys (I forget the model) which I thought were pretty good (although not great on the midrange).
- A long time ago I had a pair of Rectilinear Research 5's. (Rectilinear was a small company - and probably long gone. These were 4-way sealed speakers, with a 12" woofer, a KEF B110a midrange, large dome midrange and 1" dome tweeter, and a series crossover.) - More recently, I had a pair of Vandersteen 2's and then a pair of Vandersteen 4's. (These were the old Vandersteen 4's - not the newer Quattros. They had fully passive subwoofers, and sounded really nice, but they were quite large.)
- Nowadays I live in a small house and my main speakers are a pair of our Stealth 8's
Incidentally, I still own a few headphones, but the only ones I would call "really good" are a pair of Koss ESP/950's.
That's a more interesting question. I don't actually place a high priority on accurate or correct sound stage. I have no idea exactly where the violin section of a real orchestra is supposed to be - and I don't care much about the specifics of the sound stage. And, while I recognize that some speakers or headphone seem to have a "3D sound stage with different things at different distances", I can't say I care very much about that either.
Likewise, while some speakers produce "a sound stage that extends way past the speakers to the sides" and others do not, I don't especially prefer one over the other.
However, I do prefer that each instrument and sound seem to be coming from a particular location, rather than simply being part of "a pleasant airy swirl of sound". (I guess you could say that I don't care if each instrument sis in the right place - but I do want to be able to close my eyes and point to it.) In terms of being able to hear the finest details, I very much prefer electrostatic headphones, over any type of speaker, and any other type of headphone. I've never heard ANYTHING that comes close to electrostatic headphones in terms of detail and smoothness.
However, I tend to find the "in your head imaging" you get from headphones to eventually become annoying, and I simply find all headphones somewhat uncomfortable to wear for very long. (I just plain don't like the feel of something on my head - no matter how comfortable it otherwise is.) So, all that said, I do the vast majority of my listening using speakers.
If you're curious, I have a small house, with a small living room, and at the moment I listen to an XMC-1, a pair of our Stealth 8's, and one of our small subs. Before I moved into this house, and before I worked for Emotiva, I had a pair of Vandersteen 4's, an Aragon 28k preamp, and a vintage Aragon 8008 power amp. (I had lots of other equipment - but that was the system I actually listened to most of the time.)
I would say that the best sounding thing I currently own is a pair of Koss ESP/950 electrostatic headphones - but I rarely actually listen to them. (I would also say that the Stealth 8's are the closest thing I've heard to them in a speaker lately.)
I think you are blurring the lines between 2 different things. Although related, soundstage and imaging are 2 different things. Being able to point out an instrument is imaging. I prefer a large soundstage, but don't care too much about imaging when it comes to music. IMO, imaging is mostly "fakery." It's something "created" by a recording engineer, but most of the time it's not reality. Unless you are sitting in the front rows of a classical concert, all the other seats have no imaging. The orchestra sounds as one. Even when there is a solo, if you are in the front row of the balcony, it just sounds like it's coming from in front of you, not a particular point. There is no imaging at a rock concert unless panning is applied, and any imaging from typical studio recordings is "made up" with channel levels and pans etc. But enough about that, as it's a topic that we could go on about forever. I happen to agree with you about the Klipsch sound. Not a fan. I love the sound of Maggies, but I do have 2 beefs with them. Too small a sweet spot (not good for movies or my room), and that they sound so airy (as you described) that they do not sound real. They sound beyond real. They sound other worldly. The sound is fantastic, but it's not life like to me. So you mention a few other speakers you have had. But what others have you heard that you have liked? As for me (off the top of my head, missing some I'm sure):Fan: Wilson, Dynaudio, PSB, Maggies (for 2 channel), and obviously Def Tech. Oh, and I really like my Emotiva 3bs for what they are. Not a fan: Klipsch, Thiel, Paradigm, B&W, McIntosh, Sonus Faber Undecided: Focal, Golden Ear, Martin Logan (2 channel only) Would like to hear: Tekton, Legacy, Revel, and many others I'm forgetting.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by KeithL on May 29, 2019 9:01:59 GMT -5
I realized I haven't been back here in a while..... Speakers I've owned and really liked..... - In the distant past I've owned Advent Larger's, and some KLH's, and some small Infinitys (I forget the model) which I thought were pretty good (although not great on the midrange).
- A long time ago I had a pair of Rectilinear Research 5a's - which were really nice. (Rectilinear was a small company - and probably long gone. These were 4-way sealed speakers, with a 12" woofer, a KEF B110a midrange, large dome midrange and 1" dome tweeter, and a series crossover.)
- More recently, I had a pair of Vandersteen 2's and then a pair of Vandersteen 4's. (These were the old Vandersteen 4's - not the newer Quattros. They had fully passive subwoofers, and sounded really nice, but they were quite large.)
- Nowadays I live in a small house and my main speakers are a pair of our Stealth 8's Incidentally, I still own a few headphones, but the only ones I would call "really good" are a pair of Koss ESP/950's. That's a more interesting question. I don't actually place a high priority on accurate or correct sound stage. I have no idea exactly where the violin section of a real orchestra is supposed to be - and I don't care much about the specifics of the sound stage. And, while I recognize that some speakers or headphone seem to have a "3D sound stage with different things at different distances", I can't say I care very much about that either.
Likewise, while some speakers produce "a sound stage that extends way past the speakers to the sides" and others do not, I don't especially prefer one over the other.
However, I do prefer that each instrument and sound seem to be coming from a particular location, rather than simply being part of "a pleasant airy swirl of sound". (I guess you could say that I don't care if each instrument sis in the right place - but I do want to be able to close my eyes and point to it.) In terms of being able to hear the finest details, I very much prefer electrostatic headphones, over any type of speaker, and any other type of headphone. I've never heard ANYTHING that comes close to electrostatic headphones in terms of detail and smoothness.
However, I tend to find the "in your head imaging" you get from headphones to eventually become annoying, and I simply find all headphones somewhat uncomfortable to wear for very long. (I just plain don't like the feel of something on my head - no matter how comfortable it otherwise is.) So, all that said, I do the vast majority of my listening using speakers.
If you're curious, I have a small house, with a small living room, and at the moment I listen to an XMC-1, a pair of our Stealth 8's, and one of our small subs. Before I moved into this house, and before I worked for Emotiva, I had a pair of Vandersteen 4's, an Aragon 28k preamp, and a vintage Aragon 8008 power amp. (I had lots of other equipment - but that was the system I actually listened to most of the time.)
I would say that the best sounding thing I currently own is a pair of Koss ESP/950 electrostatic headphones - but I rarely actually listen to them. (I would also say that the Stealth 8's are the closest thing I've heard to them in a speaker lately.)
I think you are blurring the lines between 2 different things. Although related, soundstage and imaging are 2 different things. Being able to point out an instrument is imaging. I prefer a large soundstage, but don't care too much about imaging when it comes to music. IMO, imaging is mostly "fakery." It's something "created" by a recording engineer, but most of the time it's not reality. Unless you are sitting in the front rows of a classical concert, all the other seats have no imaging. The orchestra sounds as one. Even when there is a solo, if you are in the front row of the balcony, it just sounds like it's coming from in front of you, not a particular point. There is no imaging at a rock concert unless panning is applied, and any imaging from typical studio recordings is "made up" with channel levels and pans etc. But enough about that, as it's a topic that we could go on about forever. I happen to agree with you about the Klipsch sound. Not a fan. I love the sound of Maggies, but I do have 2 beefs with them. Too small a sweet spot (not good for movies or my room), and that they sound so airy (as you described) that they do not sound real. They sound beyond real. They sound other worldly. The sound is fantastic, but it's not life like to me. So you mention a few other speakers you have had. But what others have you heard that you have liked? As for me (off the top of my head, missing some I'm sure):Fan: Wilson, Dynaudio, PSB, Maggies (for 2 channel), and obviously Def Tech. Oh, and I really like my Emotiva 3bs for what they are. Not a fan: Klipsch, Thiel, Paradigm, B&W, McIntosh, Sonus Faber Undecided: Focal, Golden Ear, Martin Logan (2 channel only) Would like to hear: Tekton, Legacy, Revel, and many others I'm forgetting.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by KeithL on May 29, 2019 9:03:04 GMT -5
To be quite honest - I wore it for the picture but I rarely wear a hat in real life. (I just plain don't like the feel of something on my head - no matter how comfortable it otherwise is.) What about the hat?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by KeithL on May 29, 2019 9:14:23 GMT -5
True.... But let me be very clear about my personal preference..... I don't like ANY amplifier that has a sonic signature - at all. I follow the old adage of "the definition of high fidelity" as being "a straight wire with gain". (I believe someone coined that phrase before I was born - and long before any amplifier existed which qualified.)
That means that, quite literally, you should be able to take an audio signal, feed it through an amplifier, then an attenuator to cancel out the gain of the amplifier... And, if you then compare that signal to a signal going through a straight six inch long piece of wire, you should NOT be able to tell them apart... Which would mean that the amplifier is applying gain and nothing else. (And you can in fact compare the input of an amplifier to its attenuated output and measure the null between them - although that doesn't account for damping and interactions with speakers.)
Now, by this definition, if there were such a thing as a perfect tube amp, and a perfect solid state amp, they would sound identical - because, well, there is only one perfect. (There are an infinite number of ways in which you can change the sound - but only one way it can remain perfectly unchanged.)
So...... - I don't like any amplifier that sounds like a tube amp. - I don't like any amplifier that sounds like a solid state amplifier. - In fact, I don't like any amplifier that sounds like anything.
And, no, there is probably no amplifier that is absolutely perfect by this standard. But I've found that good solid state amplifiers seem to come the closest.
------------
I should also add a bit of historical context - about KlipschHorns.
Back when they were invented, most "big amplifiers" were tube amps, between 50 watts and 100 watts. And, back then, KlipschHorns were one of the very few speakers that were efficient enough to deliver realistic listening levels in a big room (like a theater) with that amount of power. They also only really worked well in a large room (the full-sized Klipsch Horns required a room at least 20 - 30 feet square to even reach full output at low frequencies - because the room walls were part of the horn).
So, at that time, they were essentially "the only game in town" if you wanted realistic listening levels in a big room.
Is that Keith rocking the boat again? Yeah Maggie's are the sensurround of speakers. Great if you love landscapes of music. Not great for picking out an address. Klipsch is one of those where when done well, they entertain no end. Horns aren't for everyone. Kind of makes it more fun. I heard Klipschs' once knock it out of the park. It was a very long time ago. But it was proof that Paul Klipsch was no dummy. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Try reading the book about him and adjust your bias accordingly. Then there is your tube amp.😁😁😁😁😁🙃🙃🙃🙃 But Keith doesn't like tube amps.🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by mauriceminor on May 29, 2019 9:24:20 GMT -5
Woozy with Deja Vu Rectilinear III Highboys Circa 1971
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on May 29, 2019 9:29:05 GMT -5
I hear you Keith loud and clear. However, looking at every amp inside there is no way any of them does not have a sound of its own. They all color the sound.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on May 29, 2019 10:03:33 GMT -5
So...... - I don't like any amplifier that sounds like a tube amp. - I don't like any amplifier that sounds like a solid state amplifier. - In fact, I don't like any amplifier that sounds like anything.
The "perfect" amplifier??
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by KeithL on May 29, 2019 12:57:58 GMT -5
At a certain level I would agree.
However, I do find your wording, or perhaps your conclusions, to be a bit odd.... If I were to look inside two amplifiers, and see that one or both were based on designs that had a lot of distortion, or a very non-flat frequency response, I would expect them to sound dissimilar. But, by the same logic, I would expect two amplifiers, both of whose designs I recognized as delivering very low distortion, and otherwise good performance, would sound very similar to each other. For example, if you do a very careful A/B comparison between an XPA-2 Gen2 and an XPA-2 Gen3, you can pick out tiny differences between them. However, because both are very flat, and offer very low distortion, I would expect them to sound quite similar - which they do.
I would also say that, if you compare either of them to any other really neutral solid state amp, you may be able to discern a tiny difference, but the differences will be equally slight.
By slight I mean that, on a careful A/B comparison, I would be able to notice a difference; however, if I were to hear something which I wasn't familiar with played on both, I probably couldn't tell you which was which. However, I've never heard a tube power amp that didn't add a MAJOR amount of coloration. The closest I've heard would be the big Carver power amps.... (compared to the majority of tube power amps, the Carvers have relatively high damping, and relatively low distortion)
In fact, I specifically recall walking into our two-channel room when the Carver amps first arrived and got hooked up. It as pretty obvious, without looking, that the bass was softer and slightly muddier, and the high frequencies also seemed somewhat softened and smoother over. The improvement also seemed quite obvious when we switched to a pair of XPA-1's; the high end became more distinct, and the bass became cleaner and sharper.
There were a few people here who thought that the Carvers sounded "different but nice in their own way" - but I don't think anybody failed to consider the difference to be very obvious. (I alsodon't recall there being much doubt about which was delivering the sound in the recording more accurately.)
I have definitely heard one or two tube PREAMPS which I might not have known used tubes if I was unable to see them. However, since, at that level of performance, the tube models consistently cost a lot more, I see little reason in paying that premium for something that sounds the same. It is certainly theoretically possible to design a perfectly neutral tube power amp - but the cost would be astronomical.... (And you could build a solid state amp of equal power, that sounded equally neutral, for far less.)
The only real reason I can see to buy something that uses tubes would be if you hear the difference and like the way it sounds.
I hear you Keith loud and clear. However, looking at every amp inside there is no way any of them does not have a sound of its own. They all color the sound.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by KeithL on May 29, 2019 13:00:10 GMT -5
Somehow I doubt it.... but it probably sounds "quite woody"... (And it is quite attractive.)
Have you ever seen the frequency response and THD specs on one of those? (Neither have I - but I can imagine that they must be pretty bad.)
So...... - I don't like any amplifier that sounds like a tube amp. - I don't like any amplifier that sounds like a solid state amplifier. - In fact, I don't like any amplifier that sounds like anything.
The "perfect" amplifier??
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,924
|
Post by KeithL on May 29, 2019 13:14:03 GMT -5
Nice......
Rectilinear made a rather wide variety of speakers - with quite different designs. (I lived on Long Island and they were a local company so we saw quite a few of them.)
A friend of mine had a pair, which didn't have a model number... They had a 10" woofer with a cloth accordion type edge, a 5" paper cone midrange, with an octagonal basket and a whizzer cone, and four tiny 1-1/4" paper cone tweeters.
My model 5a's were rather more modern in construction. They had a 12" woofer with a foam roll surround and a very heavy magnet (in a sealed cabinet). And a KEF B110a midrange (a British midrange with a rubber roll surround - the same driver used as the mid-woofer in the Rogers LS3/5a). And a big dome upper midrange (maybe 2"). And a small 1" cloth dome tweeter. They also used a somewhat unusual series crossover (it's a different type of circuit topology from a normal crossover - but they can be made more or less equivalent)
They sounded quite nice, were very flat, and were able to get very loud.
I can't even find pictures of the 5a's - but I think they were one of the last few models they made.
(I forgot to mention, before the Vandersteens, I had a pair of KEF mini-monitors - Reference 2's or 3's I think - with the coaxial dome tweeter, and a Sunfire Signature Sub... )
Woozy with Deja Vu Rectilinear III Highboys Circa 1971
|
|
|
Post by strindl on May 29, 2019 14:39:50 GMT -5
Nice...... Rectilinear made a rather wide variety of speakers - with quite different designs. (I lived on Long Island and they were a local company so we saw quite a few of them.)
A friend of mine had a pair, which didn't have a model number... They had a 10" woofer with a cloth accordion type edge, a 5" paper cone midrange, with an octagonal basket and a whizzer cone, and four tiny 1-1/4" paper cone tweeters. My model 5a's were rather more modern in construction. They had a 12" woofer with a foam roll surround and a very heavy magnet (in a sealed cabinet). And a KEF B110a midrange (a British midrange with a rubber roll surround - the same driver used as the mid-woofer in the Rogers LS3/5a). And a big dome upper midrange (maybe 2"). And a small 1" cloth dome tweeter. Those cloth roll surrounds turned out to be far more durable than the foam surrounds. My original Large Advent speakers from 1974 had all of the woofer foam disintegrating after about a dozen years. My brother had a pair of KLH two way speakers from the same era,must have been the KLH 5 or 6, similar to the large Advents, but they used a cloth roll surround. Those KLH surrounds are still intact today.
|
|
|
Post by mountain on May 29, 2019 16:06:53 GMT -5
Nice...... Rectilinear made a rather wide variety of speakers - with quite different designs. (I lived on Long Island and they were a local company so we saw quite a few of them.)
A friend of mine had a pair, which didn't have a model number... They had a 10" woofer with a cloth accordion type edge, a 5" paper cone midrange, with an octagonal basket and a whizzer cone, and four tiny 1-1/4" paper cone tweeters. My model 5a's were rather more modern in construction. They had a 12" woofer with a foam roll surround and a very heavy magnet (in a sealed cabinet). And a KEF B110a midrange (a British midrange with a rubber roll surround - the same driver used as the mid-woofer in the Rogers LS3/5a). And a big dome upper midrange (maybe 2"). And a small 1" cloth dome tweeter. Those cloth roll surrounds turned out to be far more durable than the foam surrounds. My original Large Advent speakers from 1974 had all of the woofer foam disintegrating after about a dozen years. My brother had a pair of KLH two way speakers from the same era,must have been the KLH 5 or 6, similar to the large Advents, but they used a cloth roll surround. Those KLH surrounds are still intact today. I’ve had two sets of large advents and one set of the smaller advents reconed many years ago. They were great speakers for the money.
|
|