What is "better" sound to you?

[wkhanna]

...... until you brought physics into it.

 

When I brought ‘physics’ into it, I was simply referring to things like lobbing & directivity issues common in speakers with more than one driver or with driver arrays. A single driver speaker acts a point source.

[mayhem13]

When I brought ‘physics’ into it, I was simply referring to things like lobbing & directivity issues common in speakers with more than one driver or with driver arrays. A single driver speaker acts a point source.

 

Ok........but a single driver still suffers from poor directivity and a well designed multi way doesn't exhibit lobing...............? And proper line arrays are one of the most direct wavefronts available.

 

.....on the other hand, Fullrange drivers have a terrible off axis response always.....

[wkhanna]

The advantages of a single fulrange driver with what's available today siply dont exist over even a well executed 2way speaker.

 

I fully admitted that single driver speakers were not a panacea to audio Nirvan as they, like any speaker design, are a calculated compromise. Just as I admitted the availability of many excellent two-way speakers.

[Bunny]

So do you have a prescription for my unhealthy ears?

Magnesium and Iodine I know so far that help repair your hearing. But there should be other nutrients out there that may also boost hearing. Based on my diet experience it's a huge difference. It is also very important what not to eat, which has even greater effect to hearing. So eating good food doesn't mean much if you keep eating those ice cream cones and twinkies everyday. I love sweets too. Drives me nuts not eating them. I wait till late night before I go to bed on weekends.

 

I will provide update in my Diet thread about what I have found out with food. It's a good news.

 

 

bunny

[Paul R]

Paul, I have never liked the Klipschorns either.

 

So, there are two of us in this world! Sweet!

 

Great story about those Altecs too. I had an opportunity to grab a double pair of those, but I was still living at home with my parents and had no place to store them. Dad would not even consent to let me store them in the barn. I think they made him a little nervous...

 

-Paul

 

 

I remember the Western Electric sound systems, and I may be mixing those us with Klipsch. Did they have the big old honking horns too?

 

-Paul

[DigiPete]

I went to a demonstration at my local dealers.

 

Three brand spanking new Lyngdorf TDAI2170 digital amps with RoomPerfect correction was demoed with with an assortment of B&W's.

 

I never liked B&W's much, I think they are over priced, power hungry and over hyped (PR wise).

Still, it should be a good listen with interested people.

And I have been impressed by Steinway - Lyngdorf entry level system on numerous occasions.

USD 25.000,- from signal to speaker system.

 

I took a stick with some favourites of mine - good music well recorded.

 

It sounded awful - or really rely terrible.

 

- The rooms were challenging (hard, too small and/or wrong dimensions)

- The speakers were too hungry for the souped-down amps

- No extension to the lower registers.

 

No blame on the equipment, we were just asking too much of it.

 

It really dawned on me how lucky I am.

To have a home suitable and equipment capable.

To have found something that fits me.

To enjoy sound that pleases me every day.

 

I wish that for every single one of you!

[gmgraves]

So, there are two of us in this world! Sweet!

 

Great story about those Altecs too. I had an opportunity to grab a double pair of those, but I was still living at home with my parents and had no place to store them. Dad would not even consent to let me store them in the barn. I think they made him a little nervous...

 

-Paul

 

Been there, done that! There were actually FIVE speaker systems behind the screen in this theater. The left and right side were doubled-up as a pair of A7s, and then there was a single much bigger speaker box in the center. I saw no name, but it looked similar to a pre-war RCA system. and was probably the theater's original speaker before they installed the wide-screen in the 1950's. I only took two of the A7s for the same reason that you didn't grab any - lack of room. We lived in a Cape Cod style house with a steep roof. This allowed for two good-sized rooms upstairs (even though above about chest -high, the roof caused the walls to slope inward) and had dormers for windows and a big dormer "bump-out" in the back to allow for an upstairs bathroom. I was an only child and I had one of the two upstairs rooms all to myself. The other one was used solely for my mom to hang her wash on rainy days and in the winter. Soon after I got the Altecs, my parents bought a clothes dryer, and the other room suddenly became open, My dad suggested that I move my stereo system, TV, and easy chair out of my bedroom and into the other upstairs room. Now, we're talking. Now I had my own "apartment" and I only had to come downstairs for meals! I was able to play with placement of the A7s in that second room, and eventually found an arrangement that sounded the best, but I have to tell you, I would have traded those behemoth A7s for a pair of AR3ax's in a heartbeat! The A7 aluminum multi-cellular horn crossed over to the woofer at around 400 Hz (this was normal for this kind of system) and had a huge, broad peak centered at around 700 Hz and a narrower, but just as high of a peak at around 14 KHz. This gave these speakers a nasty (to my ears, anyway) honky quality and a high frequency sizzle that made strings sound screechy and cymbals, "splashy." However, I couldn't complain about their high-frequency coverage, though. That Altec treble horn driver was good all the way out to 19 Khz!

 

 

I remember the Western Electric sound systems, and I may be mixing those us with Klipsch. Did they have the big old honking horns too?

 

-Paul

 

Yes, they did. To my knowledge, all cinema speakers from Vitaphone days all the way up to the introduction of THX, used horn speakers (I don't know what modern theaters use). And no matter who made them, they seemed to follow a formula not unlike the original Klipschorns. The bass units were generally 15" or 18" woofers housed in folded-horn enclosures (which they used to call "acoustical labyrinths") and the mid-range and highs were usually long, wide-mouth horns driven by compression drivers. These horns were usually of a multi-cellular design (for wide dispersion) but not always. Some had three separate exponential "High Frequency" horns, each with it's own driver, arrayed in a fan-like configuration to get the auditorium coverage required.

 

Before WWII, the woofers in these huge speaker systems did not employ permanent magnets, but rather used electromagnets for the field magnets. This meant that they had to have dedicated DC power supplies (to avoid hum). WWII advanced the science of magnet making and the Alnico V (for the alloy of Aluminum, Nickel, and Cobalt used) magnet was perfected, After the war, electromagnetic speakers went the way of the Dodo.

[Paul R]

...

...

...

Now I had my own "apartment" and I only had to come downstairs for meals! I was able to play with placement of the A7s in that second room, and eventually found an arrangement that sounded the best, but I have to tell you, I would have traded those behemoth A7s for a pair of AR3ax's in a heartbeat!

...

...

...

Yea verily, I hear thee!

 

I came *this* close to picking up a set of AR3a's from E-Bay the other day. Only thing that stopped me was paying $600 + shipping for a set of speakers that sold for $250/each new, and were in unknown condition. I remember seeing the price tags and grimacing at my local stereo store. (grin)

 

I have definitely been bit by the "heritage" "vintage" "old stuff sounds good" bug. It is part of what is making me reexamine what I think "good sound" really is. It really is both an easy and a fiendishly difficult question to answer, isn't it?

 

-Paul

[Encore]

Chris points out in his review that the Aurender W20 shows up the limitations of the C.A.P.S. music server as a source. Given that the C.A.P.S. is not only good as a music source, it is very good, that is saying something. I am not sure exactly what he is hearing that makes the W20 sound better though.

 

I suspect that it is obvious when you hear it. I have recently ditched my MacbookPro for a custom-built music server, using--not the ubiquitous SOtM--but an MSI motherboard where attention has been payed to make the usb output suited for audio. Much, much better sound than the MBP. I thought better sound wouldn't be possible, but an Auraliti w linear PSU, a LAN isolator and a 1 k$ power cable, sounded even better (as it should--the combo was three times as expensive).

 

My point is I have a pretty good idea of how Chris perceives the sound to be better. It's like turning off a fan--you don't realize that you have been annoyed by its noise until it's turned off.

 

To your main question: At a recent audio show here in Copenhagen, I heard and all TAD system, which everybody raved about. I didn't. I found the sound clearly electronic, with accentuated highs.

 

Just goes to show that preferences differ …

[AudioDoctor]

better to me = sound I like more.

[Allan F]

better to me = sound I like more.

 

I could be wrong, but I think that was assumed in the initial question.

[AudioDoctor]

I could be wrong, but I think that was assumed in the the initial question.

 

Paul is trying too hard to apply objective analysis to a purely subjective experience.

[Allan F]

Paul is trying too hard to apply objective analysis to a purely subjective experience.

 

Careful now. The objectivists may be listening.

[realhifi]

better to me = sound I like more.

 

I resemble that remark!

[mayhem13]

Paul is trying too hard to apply objective analysis to a purely subjective experience.

 

I didn't get that from the OP.

 

I 'chose' an objective response as it seemed like the more reasonable response given the alternative.

[pooger]

Paul is trying too hard to apply objective analysis to a purely subjective experience.

 

I don't think it was a matter of trying too hard. Acknowledging that it is a subjective topic, it seems very reasonable to ask listeners what their biases are, and most posts have done just that. I have a feeling that most CA members are very analytical in many aspects of their lives--audio just being one of them. Even the dyed in the wool subjectivist can be analytical.

[Harpy]

Liked the blog article about voicing. Most vintage tube amps are prized their original transformers. Some people say they can hear a big difference between a Hafler designed transformer verse a modern reproduction which would measure the same.

[mayhem13]

Yea verily, I hear thee!

 

I came *this* close to picking up a set of AR3a's from E-Bay the other day. Only thing that stopped me was paying $600 + shipping for a set of speakers that sold for $250/each new, and were in unknown condition. I remember seeing the price tags and grimacing at my local stereo store. (grin)

 

I have definitely been bit by the "heritage" "vintage" "old stuff sounds good" bug. It is part of what is making me reexamine what I think "good sound" really is. It really is both an easy and a fiendishly difficult question to answer, isn't it?

 

-Paul

 

Estate sales Paul......estate sales!......while they may be somewhat morbid, I have a friend who makes his living ( an excellent one I might add) at these with amazing finds of vintage audio and heirloom and high end jewelry. You won't believe the things family members pass over as worthless junk.

 

While you are blessed with a partner who shares your passion for music, there's plenty of others who rue the day their mates were bitten by the hifi bug and couldn't care an ounce for the gear cluttering their homes........imagine how much less so after the passing. Sad.......but still true.

[mayhem13]

I don't think it was a matter of trying too hard. Acknowledging that it is a subjective topic, it seems very reasonable to ask listeners what their biases are, and most posts have done just that. I have a feeling that most CA members are very analytical in many aspects of their lives--audio just being one of them. Even the dyed in the wool subjectivist can be analytical.

 

Exactly!

 

Subjectivist in a search for tangeable enjoyment more than objectivists.......with analytic procedures less scientific in their approach, but sometimes better suited to the individual purpose........but analyze they do!

[sandyk]

Exactly!

 

Subjectivist in a search for tangeable enjoyment more than objectivists.......with analytic procedures less scientific in their approach, but sometimes better suited to the individual purpose........but analyze they do!

 

Sometimes it helps if you are also able to think "outside the square" too.

[AudioDoctor]

I don't think it was a matter of trying too hard. Acknowledging that it is a subjective topic, it seems very reasonable to ask listeners what their biases are, and most posts have done just that. I have a feeling that most CA members are very analytical in many aspects of their lives--audio just being one of them. Even the dyed in the wool subjectivist can be analytical.

 

Listening to music is one of the things I allow myself to do without being analytical. IMO there is no aspect of listening to music that can be made better by listening analytically.

[Paul R]

Listening to music is one of the things I allow myself to do without being analytical. IMO there is no aspect of listening to music that can be made better by listening analytically.

 

Insightful - does this suggest there might be different measures for "better" when listening to music as opposed to listening to equipment? Or are they the same thing? Or some blending of both?

[pooger]

Listening to music is one of the things I allow myself to do without being analytical. IMO there is no aspect of listening to music that can be made better by listening analytically.

 

If I sit down to try and listen to an equipment change (this is where the analytical comes in), and find myself lost in the music, several songs later, I assume that everything is working just fine! I think most of the comments in this thread have been about listening to equipment (well, obviously listening to music, but paying attention to equipment) to ascertain what sounds "better." Hopefully everyone here spends almost all their time listening to music and only a bit listening to equipment. I can only do the latter in small doses; at this point, mainly setting aside a few hours in a weekend to try out different things. If something seems better, I leave it and enjoy the music until the next tweaking session.

 

That said, I'm also guilty of comparing, say, Gould and Kirkpatrick playing a prelude, and it's hard to say at what point the comparison crosses over from emotional to analytical (although probably quicker with Gould...)

[AudioDoctor]

Insightful - does this suggest there might be different measures for "better" when listening to music as opposed to listening to equipment? Or are they the same thing? Or some blending of both?

 

I think that it not only implies it, but it demands it. When I am "evaluating" a new piece of gear, I listen to the music still. If it doesn't evoke a response to make the music "better" I pass. I don't listen analytically for any specific thing. I listen to the music.

 

edit: To paraphrase the Supreme Courts standard for porn or art, I know better when I hear it...

 

[gmgraves]

Yea verily, I hear thee!

 

I came *this* close to picking up a set of AR3a's from E-Bay the other day. Only thing that stopped me was paying $600 + shipping for a set of speakers that sold for $250/each new, and were in unknown condition. I remember seeing the price tags and grimacing at my local stereo store. (grin)

 

You have really got to be careful buying used AR3s. Almost always you will find that the drivers have deteriorated to the point of being useless by this time. The original AR3 dome tweeter had a phenolic diaphragm, and those should be OK (if they haven't been cooked by being overdriven), but as I recall, the AR3ax had a "soft dome" tweeter made of silk and latex rubber. These will be perished, The woofers had pulp paper cones and most have dried out and are brittle. These speakers can be restored to like new, but it's neither a DIY project nor cheap to have done. So, Paul you dodged the bullet when you decided not to buy a pair of AR3axs on E-Bay. Not only would you have paid more than they were new plus shipping (talk about expensive!), but you would have likely had to have both of them restored. After all would have been said and done, it wouldn't surprise me to find that you would have paid more than $1000 for those two speakers, and perhaps much more!

 

I have definitely been bit by the "heritage" "vintage" "old stuff sounds good" bug. It is part of what is making me reexamine what I think "good sound" really is. It really is both an easy and a fiendishly difficult question to answer, isn't it?

 

I know what you mean. Lately, I've been lusting after an old Empire 398, 498, or 598 turntable, or perhaps one of those tank-like Denon direct-drive turntables from the 1970's - you know, the one with the circular bezel and built-in LED display showing the 'tables speed? I'm resisting.....

 

On a related note, one of the Stereophile columnists is into vintage equipment. Lately he has restored both a Garrard 401 and a Thorens TD124 rim-drive turntable as well as several vintage speakers, and I found those articles fascinating!