Specs, upsampling, and active monitors.

[Rob]

David,

The image next to my posts is one of Steve's SET amps. It sounds incredible. Also, Steve Deckert IMO is one of the most informed audio people I have come across, not to mention one of the nicest.

 

Rob

 

[audiozorro]

I have one of his Zbox tube buffers that I occasionally use to improve the sound from any less than stellar digital source. I have also used it to connect a digital source to my amp since the Zbox has a volume control.

 

[Rob]

Audiozorro,

A good test for dynamics is the soundtrack for the movie Titanic. The dynamic swings in this music are incredible, as is it's complexity. My system handles it with speed and authority. In fact, if I want to show my system off, this music is one of my first choices. Yo Yo Ma's cello, Enya's etherial musical soundscapes, Altan's incredible Celtic music, Clanad's beautiful harmony, all sound great on my system. In fact, I have heard Enya on and off for 20 years, but I feel I have never heard her before, until I played her on my SET system. Not all SET amps are good, not all push pull amps are bad. Much of the music I listed here has considerable content at the frequency extremes, yet I have never heard it with such crystal clarity.

 

Rob

 

[Rob]

James,

I will confess that many audiophiles may not have been exposed to the myriads of equipment I have, and that is not their fault. I also do a lot of audio reading myself to keep up with what is going on. Forgive me if I sound conceited but nothing can replace experience and first hand exposure. We all read audio reviewers because of their vast experience with so much different gear and sometimes make decisions on their reviews. I am not out to put anyone or their tastes down. If Eloise makes a statement based on what she read, and not from first hand experience, all she has to do is say so. There is nothing wrong with passing on what we read, or what someone else has told us, in fact what she does is essential to the continuance of a good forum and probably passes on more information than my experience. She is a great contributor, and I love her enthusiasm. I have nothing against her or anyone on this site, but as on any forum there are diverse viewpoints, and in the positive sense that is what makes life interesting.

 

Rob

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Quite a few posts to respond to ... so lets do it in order ...

 

Rob asked if my experience was from listening and demoing equipment, or purely from reading (from whatever source). I would answer that it's both. Over the last 10 years I've spend maybe the first 7 or 8, continually upgrading and demoing equipment, trying to find the sweetspot combinations. And I feel that (for me) I'm currently at a point where I have the sound I like for 90% of my listening. Yes I'd like a pair of B&W 800D with MF Titan amp and dCS front end, but thats out of my reach (and room size) and I'm happy with what I have. Have I heard your style of system, not in it's entirety, but I have tried the "low power with high efficiency speakers" option and felt that (for me) it didn't match up to the "high power with lower efficiency speaker" that I have now. However I do have a valve in my pre-amp buffer section so maybe there is a little bit of dinosaur in me :-)

 

Having said all that, my main point wasn't that your system was wrong. You go on to accuse me of putting your choices down by saying "No, Eloise, I don't feel my tastes in music or equipment are poor. I have dwelt on both sides of the fence, and find this side greener, and I only wish others would give it a try." and if you felt that way then I apologize but that was never my intention. I was trying to say that it's great that there are options from one extreme to another, however I was also suggesting that for most people, the evidence is that they prefer the multi-driver speaker with high powered amp and over-sampling and/or up-sampling DACs. Yes the "evidence" for this comes from what the big (relatively speaking, the truly BIG manufacturers are barely in the market place any longer) manufacturers sell; so maybe I am just blinded by science and specifications, but I really don't think MOST audiophiles buy on specs and reviews, they do still listen and demonstrate, and in large numbers choose the multi-driver speakers and high powered amplifiers. Interestingly you picked on "active monitors" which really are NOT generally the audiophiles choice.

 

I spoke earlier of my "dream system" but actually for me my dream would be to be surrounded by a myriad of difference equipment, including some high efficiency speakers and a low powered valve amp; or even a set of Quad electrostatics. Would I like the valve amp ... who knows, but I'm open enough to want to try. I like the quirky, minority products - If we use a car analogy, I've no desire to own a Ferarri, however an Caterham 7 or Areial Atom is welcome in my garage any day - but just as an Caterham 7 wuldn't suit many people as an everyday car, the more mass produced solid state electronics are what more people are happiest using.

 

Eloise

 

[Rob]

Concerning the cars you mentioned, we are on the same page, add to that an 09 Triumph T-100 Bonneville or Thruxston. The Areial Atom is a perfect example of flea power showing up the big boys, but as you say, it would not be suitable as an everyday car. I have not heard your system, but it looks like a lovely set up. In order to enjoy it to the fullest, like my system, it should have a dedicated room with proper dimensions and acoustics, so in that case the practicality issue is a moot point. Few, however have that option and thus must fit their system into their living space making a compromise between esthetics and sound. No doubt your system is in a suitable audio rack with speakers on either side etc, so is mine. Your music is controlled by your iPhone, mine by my iPod Touch. So convenience is not an issue. Esthetically speaking your system would fit into most decor, so would mine. Tube change?, easier than a lightbulb, and cheap (my SET is not 300B based). I can talk to the actual designer of my equipment about suitable mating equipment etc. Most have warrantees that go anywhere from ten years to lifetime. Not made in China. Jobs stay in America, in Canada, in England. I feel this type of system has Areial Atom performance with Honda Audyssey convenience, and at very reasonable cost, in some cases even cheaper than an active monitor set up.

 

Rob

 

[cfmsp]

Eloise said:

 

"however I was also suggesting that for most people, the evidence is that they prefer the multi-driver speaker with high powered amp and over-sampling and/or up-sampling DACs. Yes the "evidence" for this comes from what the big [...] manufacturers sell..."

 

Using this type of information as 'evidence' says that the most commonly sold product is what most people prefer. While this will be provable from a statistical perspective, by definition, it can NOT be inferred that this is what would be preferred if people had tested all alternatives.

 

I would not infer (based on numbers of units sold) that any particular (design) approach is the best for meeting any particular customer's needs simply because it is what the large successful companies are offering. Quite the contrary, if one believes, as I do, the well known innovator's dilemma (aka keeping the cash cow alive), not to mention the purely economic realities already mentioned in this thread (as a reason for a company NOT to pursue a particular design approach).

 

James/Icebreaker offered these comments:

 

"OTOH, others don't have to have heard it themselves to make a survey of those audiophiles to get their preference. When the vast majority say its not for them then one CAN make an informed decision on that basis. There is only a 10% chance that I am wrong and will fall into the group that likes tubes."

 

using this logic, no one should consider a Macintosh computer, nor organic food, nor quite a number of things that don't (YET) break the 10% threshold. They should rest contentedly with what the masses have chosen. (I think) NOT!

 

Personally, I'm always a little suspect when my interests are directly in line with the majority.

 

With regards to using numbers (e.g., volume sold) to connote suitability/quality of products, my thoughts are the same as with casting voting in elections. To wit, I think it's a shame that an uneducated vote counts the same as an educated one.

 

Just trying to offer a differing, yet congenial, perspective.

 

clay

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Clay ... Surely if you are innovating with an eye to marketing, using technologies such as NOS DAC would be used to help the products stand out. As I say, I may be naive, but I really do hope that the designers in our HiFi companies are looking for ways to make their products stand out by sounding better, NOT just by being higher spec'd.

 

That's all I have to say ...

 

Eloise

 

[Rob]

I can't add anything to what you said.

 

Rob

 

[cfmsp]

I certainly don't think you are naive, Eloise, as evidenced by your opinions posted here.

 

As I see it, we are just more naturally skeptical towards different types of companies (with their differing motivations), emphasis on 'different types'.

 

As an example, I've been driving BMWs more years than not since the mid 70s, starting with a 1974 2002tii. I became skeptical of BMW as their business increased - imagine that - especially so when they started rolling out cars with automatic transmissions (as they moved into the luxury market).

 

But, I remained loyal, and have over 175,000 miles on my current car, a 2000 540i 6-spd, which has seen more off-road action than a Nordstrom's parking lot full of Range Rovers.

 

EDIT: what's my point? I think it's this - as 'marketing' increases, so does my skepticism. And who places more emphasis (and dollars/euros) on marketing? The larger companies.

 

But I try to keep my skepticism in check, when appropriate.

 

cheers,

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[Fuel]

NOS + single driver speaker + valve amp

 

Enjoyable maybe

 

Accurate no

 

IMO the problem with highly resolving components with low distortion, low noise floors, etc is they demand more of a system approach. And because most people have crappy, uncalibrated listening rooms, that means that lower resolving components often end up sounding the same or better.

 

Bring the flames

 

[cfmsp]

 

Sorry, I don't see the point in feeding the bears...or the trolls.

 

 

clay

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

"Bring the flames"

 

 

 

 

 

The CAFD is standing by

 

 

 

[Rob]

Dear Fuel,

I see some contradictions here:

1) "Enjoyable maybe, Accurate no" How can that be? Isn't it the opposite?

2) "they demand more of a system approach." Doesn't any good system?

3) "And because most people have crappy, uncalibrated listening rooms," Maybe you do. How do you know "most" do?

4) "that means that lower resolving components often end up sounding the same or better." I would think it would be the opposite. Lower resolving componants would sound even lower, and higher resolving componants would be above that. I have always known high to be above low, but I realize much has changed in the world in the last few years, so maybe I have missed something.

 

What do you listen to anyway?!

 

Rob

 

 

 

 

[Audio_ELF]

Clay said... "As I see it, we are just more naturally skeptical towards different types of companies (with their differing motivations), emphasis on 'different types'."

 

Now I think on it more, what you're saying can be applied to companes such as HiFi companies - though often not always across the board and the company motives at different points an be very different. Take my favourite speaker company, B&W. At the top end, the 800 series and even moreso the Nautilus and Signature Diamond are very much no-compromise designs. Lower down though there are compromises made for marketing (though not necessarily in the pursuits of headig specs I would argue). A good example is B&Ws phasing out of the 700 series. These were non-oblong-box speakers with "tweeter on top" technology - technology B&W have long advocated for best SQ. These have been replaced with the higher end CM series which are (while very nice looking) just boxes. A decision that B&W have acknowledged in Q & A sessions (with journalists) has little to do with SQ and lots to do with beig able to market them. The cabinet design doesn't make them bad, but will compromise their ability for the sake of majority tastes.

 

Anyway that doesn't change my belief that companies go for good SQ over headline specs, bu does acknowledge that sometimes innovation and good "sound" design is thown away for sake of majority tastes.

 

Eloise

 

[vortecjr]

My Rotel 1069 could have done much better IMO if they had slapped the eye grabbing spec of dobly hd and dts master audio. It does not decode these and yet I bought it to play these realizing I could by decoding at the player (where you should decode) and feeding in the pcm via hdmi. One could argue that Rotel was playing safe until the hd war was over, I think they did not want to compermise the design (aka sound quality at this price point). Yes they caved in under the new 15 series and who can blame them of other for what they do to make poopoo heads happy.

 

[cfmsp]

eloise said:

"sometimes innovation and good "sound" design is thown away for sake of majority tastes."

 

...as well as for economic reasons, and for simple lack of necessary understanding/ability to implement non-standard design approaches, ie, lack of innovation, and reliance on 'copycatting' (or licensing) the designs of others, as in the me-too USB implementations.

 

 

An analogy with regards to musicians - sometimes bands become successful and then 'sell out', aka 'going commercial'. Companies do this as a matter of course, I most often prefer those that don't. I'll reward the innovator almost every time, although I spend a lot of time investigating/tracking the innovators in many different fields so as not to invest with a loser. My very first 'audiophile' amp was from an unknown (in the US) company at that time (1984) - Musical Fidelity A1. I'd say that Anthony Michaelson (the clarinetist?) has done pretty well for himself.

 

Back to music for a second,

Only truly exceptional rock bands consistently improve over time, per my tastes. Said another way, I almost always prefer the earliest releases. Perhaps it is the way they are recorded or produced, I don't know. This is not true for musicians that are not commercial blockbusters, e.g. Ry Cooder.

 

clay

 

[Fuel]

1) You can have enjoyable with poor relationship to the original recorded sound

2) If you have a poor amp whatever you will hear less variation between a Cambridge Audio DAC and a DCS compared to having a good amp

3) Because most people wouldn't know one end of a spectral decay or ETA from the other.

4) I have found higher performing components often reveal problems with lesser performing components e.g. you wouldn't pair a great pair of loudspeakers with a low end dac. Because lower performing components aren't as revealing you can get away with the deficiencies in other components. Hence why high distortion tube amps go with response-all-over-the-place single driver speakers.

 

 

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

"Hence why high distortion tube amps go with response-all-over-the-place single driver speakers."

 

And likewise why high distortion solid state amps go (well) with response-all-over-the-place multi-driver systems.

 

:0

 

clay

 

 

 

 

 

[audiozorro]

My tube amp rated at 20 Hz to 20 kHz, +0,-0.5 dB with less than 1% THD and IM distortion

 

or

 

my full range electrostatic speakers rated 20 Hz to 20 kHz, +3,-3 dB

 

and

 

since they are both state of the art and sound great, who cares?

 

[Fuel]

If the tube amp can drive the electrostatic without altering freq response and can supply sufficient current without increased distortion then its a good performing component

 

SETs typically wouldn't fit into this category, although there are always exceptions

 

 

[Rob]

It seems this thread is taking more than one direction, as threads often do, but I will post this anyway as it goes with my original one. I used to work in audio stores in the 70s and early 80s, they carried more brands than I can list here. But to name a few: Yamaha, Poineer, Sansui, Akai, Luxman, Harmon-Kardon, Quad, B&O, Dual, Thorens, JVC, Mission, Monitor audio, Infinity, AR, etc, etc. I got out of it just before the CD came on the scene. These companies, were producing a great two channel product (for that day) in virtually every price range. For example, Sansui reached their peak around 1980, but in order to reach the masses they came out with the Audio Compo series (more aptly named the audio compost series). After this time, they and the other Japanese brands for the most part turned away from the classic products that put them on the map and turned to mass market throw away lo-fi garbage. I see much of it in the thrift stores today, usually with something wrong with it. Many of the companies that did survive went to home theatre, and left their two channel roots. If you go to the websites of companies that still give the nod to two channel (the major British, Canadian, and American brands) it is not hard to tell they are putting their eggs in the home theatre mass market basket with more SKUs than Carter has liver pills. You will notice when they present each speaker line on their websites, they are in 5.1 or 7.1 packages. True, some of these companies produce no compromise products, but the price is far above what the average mortal can afford. Also, like the car companies, they change their lines every year or two, for no other reason than to follow market trends, and to keep the company bean counters happy, not in the interests of improved sound, and the major audio magazines who they advertise with are there to help them with their five star reviews. The other great travesty is the fact that like lemmings they are almost to a man outsourcing their manufacturing to China. The political side of it I won't go into as this is an audio site. Example: A person buys a pair of speakers by famous British brand "A", but in reality, they are made by factory "X" in China who builds speakers for brands B, C, D and E also. I know the argument will come up that if products were still made in America, Canada, Britain, Europe etc, we could not afford them. If you have fallen for that story, I have a road to sell you. Example: A very respected British manufacturer moved their manufacturing to China, and on their most iconic product, the price only dropped from $1400 to $1200 a pair. I spoke to the distributor of this product and he said manufacturing costs are about as high in China as they are in the U.K. and Europe, but sadly there is no turning back, because the manufacturing operations in the U.K. and Europe have sold off their tooling, ditto for electronics. The companies that have kept their manufacturing in their native countries have done so by thinking outside the box with more innovative marketing, and often their products are more innovative too.

Cyrus, a small company who manufactures in the U.K., and sells through conventional distribution and dealers with the conventional markup is able to hand build an excellent product that offers tremendous value. How do they do it? The answer, at least in part, is obvious: they have stayed with the same casework for about two decades and have concentrated on upgrading the internals rather than following the latest market styling fad, yet IMO it is some of the best looking and sounding solid state gear around, and whether a piece is old or new, it is recognized as a Cyrus. Not so with the masses. To a point, the real audiophile two channel industry is a cottage industry compared to the mass marketers of our day.

 

Rob

 

[cfmsp]

 

 

"SETs typically wouldn't fit into this category, although there are always exceptions"

 

Agreed, although Kara Chaffee's high power SET amps might sound just great.

 

clay

 

[PJH]

I am curious as to why you find a trend towards active speakers disturbing. To me it's quite the opposite. Assuming that most people who are purchasing active speakers are those who are moving away from passive speakers then this is definitely a step in the right direction. A well designed active speaker will outperform all but the most costly passive speaker and amplifier combinations. I hope that more manufacturers will begin to offer active designs at all price levels.

If you are suggesting that passive speaker users should instead consider a single driver speaker with no crossovers to muddy the sound then I understand. Yes a single driver driven directly from an amplifier with no crossover will sound the most natural but there must be trade offs with this design as well, such as low and high frequency limits and possible modulation of the high frequencies by the low frequencies.

In the end it is all about trade offs and what sounds most pleasing and natural. From what I have heard, active speakers are far more natural sounding than passive ones.

 

[BobH]

From one Bob to another (Rob!) - I hardly know where to start! I could have written your post myself - and would probably have done exactly as you did, initially, for the very same reasons! I 100% agree with your every sentiment.

 

I would add that I think one of the major 'causes' of the 'bank of inefficient drivers' approach to speaker building - and the horrific amounts of power required to drive them - is the steady drip feed, over the past 20 years or so, of unrealistic levels of bass information present in recordings and systems alike. People have become used to hearing bass reproduction volume levels that simply do not exist in the real world - or at least if they do, then they shouldn't!

 

On the 'specs' front, I think the amount of information available to people these days, mainly via the web, leads them to believe that this information is in some way useful, when in actual fact it tells you virtually nothing about how a piece of equipment, or music, will sound in your system, in your room. People worry about 'specs' because they have access to them and because it is something they can worry about. Manufacturers print 'specs' because, well, what else would they put in the brochure?

 

Upsampling is a very good example of the 'specs' obsession - 24/96 MUST sound better than 16/44.1 because it's, well, like, bigger and stuff. Whereas the reality is that it is the quality of the recording that really matters - a song badly recorded and mixed in glorious 24/96 is still going to sound crap! A song well recorded at 24/96 but delivered at 16/44.1 is still going to sound good and to make it sound better requires a considerable investment.

 

I forget who said it, (it was in a recent UK hi-fi mag), but the quote went something like 'I would rather have an enjoyable lie than the unbearable truth'. This quote was in support of valve amps and high efficiency loudspeakers and makes the point that the best 'specs' in the world are no use if the end result is tiring, fatiguing and unenjoyable. Some hz or other that is 'missing' from your audible range is not necessarily a fault!

 

In truth, many of these 'for and against' arguments come down purely to personal preference and are in no way at all connected to specifications or design theory. Much to the disgust of the designers, I'm sure! And I totally agree with you that to dismiss technologies as 'outdated' purely on the basis of 'specs' ought to be discouraged. If you've never heard a 2W SET amp driving a pair of Lowthers, or some such similar, then you've never heard one exceedingly valid way of building a very enjoyable system. It won't do everything, but then nothing will, and you may well like what you hear!

 

Oh, I nearly forgot, - the Mac Mini is a cheaply built, monitor, keyboard and mouse-less, Netbook with a good operating system installed. Nothing more, nothing less. :)