Fas42’s Stereo ‘Magic’

[fas42]

I very much like what shtf is doing, and persued a couple more videos on his channel - what caught my ear is that the quality is varying somewhat; I posted earlier that this montage didn't strike me well,

 

 

but he's done a much more recent one, which I'm much happier with,

 

 

Note in particular the song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight", in both clips - and the difference in how they come across.

[shtf]

On 4/27/2019 at 6:55 PM, fas42 said:

shtf posted a video of his rig in another thread,

 

I don't wish to participate there, so I'll make the one comment that although the dynamics of the recordings are well done, the tonal signature of the rig is still far too prominent; each song, from completely different eras, has a sameness to the presentation - which should not be the case.

 

Sorry about that, shtf ...

 

No worries, Frank, though it looks like I must have deleted that video a while back.  Do you happen to remember what it was?  Because if it's deleted it's probably only because I have a more recent version.

 

But I’m curious.  What great efforts would you go thru to correct the signature of these violins in the below piece? 

Remember, if the recording labels’ sound and mastering engineers were doing their job, your listening perspective should  be maybe 5 – 20 rows deep into the audience (assuming the recording’s ambient info remains audible at the speakers).  In other words, there should be an abundance of air surrounding the instruments which when combined with distance between your ears and the soundstage makes every instrument and overall presentation sound thinner / lighter, more airy, etc.

 

I’m also curious about your other statement.  Since when does a tweak or fine-tuning effort discriminate between instruments?  IOW, if you improve the level of musicality for violins in my playback system, are you not also improving every other instrument as well?

 

[fas42]

shtf, you appear to have made some very significant improvements to your system's tune recently; I don't have any real complaints about the above. I note you've put another version of that Miller's Dance piece, which now ticks the boxes very nicely ...

 

 

Fine-tuning doesn't discriminate; all instruments should 'improve' - but recordings which are highly marginal in the technical quality of the capture or transfer benefit very strongly from 'extreme' levels of fussiness in examining every area of a rig's status.

[shtf]

16 hours ago, fas42 said:

shtf, you appear to have made some very significant improvements to your system's tune recently; I don't have any real complaints about the above. I note you've put another version of that Miller's Dance piece, which now ticks the boxes very nicely ...

 

Fine-tuning doesn't discriminate; all instruments should 'improve' - but recordings which are highly marginal in the technical quality of the capture or transfer benefit very strongly from 'extreme' levels of fussiness in examining every area of a rig's status.

 

Thanks for the note, Frank.  Actually, I’ve not touched my system in 22 months.  However, this past weekend I’ve dabbled just a bit with the software settings on my single MV88 mic.

 

Instead of a wide-angled stereo pickup mode, I’m now using this mic config. which if nothing else, seemed to provide a little better stereo separation.

 

 

Also, in the lower right corner is the EQ settings.  This weekend, instead of a flat EQ, I’ve slightly boosted the low end to warm up things up a bit.  Only because others claim it’s too thin soundings.  Granted the in-room listening is quite a bit warmer than my recordings reveal, I’ve no problem with the thinner sounding recordings.  I prefer not to adjust the EQ but it does slightly better reflect what I hear in-room.

 

As for the oldies including The Lion Sleeps Tonight differences, the only differences there are potential playback system volume levels since I set the volume by sight only.  My only reason for a 2nd version there was to rearrange the songs.

 

So playback system volume levels may vary slightly from recording to recording.  It's possible the 2nd was recorded at a slightly lower volume level.  Since all playback system volumes levels for recording are right around the 98db mark, with some recordings such as this "Lions Sleep Tonight" piece, I'm really pushing the envelope between being loud enough for most of music to make it to the mic vs a little too loud and inducing a bit of glare with this and some other pieces.  It's a fine line for sure.

 

I could probably get better results with a better quality mic, but I’m not prepared to spend more than I already have.  Besides, with a little practice I think I can get what I need from this compact MV88 mic. 

 

As for tuning / tweaking for individual instruments, I appreciate your response and I figured you'd respond as you did.  But in this crazy hobby you never know what somebody might say. 

 

[fas42]

 

On 5/22/2019 at 10:40 AM, shtf said:

As for the oldies including The Lion Sleeps Tonight differences, the only differences there are potential playback system volume levels since I set the volume by sight only.  My only reason for a 2nd version there was to rearrange the songs.

 

So playback system volume levels may vary slightly from recording to recording.  It's possible the 2nd was recorded at a slightly lower volume level.  Since all playback system volumes levels for recording are right around the 98db mark, with some recordings such as this "Lions Sleep Tonight" piece, I'm really pushing the envelope between being loud enough for most of music to make it to the mic vs a little too loud and inducing a bit of glare with this and some other pieces.  It's a fine line for sure.

 

Something's affecting the SQ - I don't see it as being purely with the micophone settings ... do you find the tonal quality consistent, or does it appear to vary, to your ears, at times? How much does it alter, subjectively, with volume setting?

 

On 5/22/2019 at 10:40 AM, shtf said:

 

I could probably get better results with a better quality mic, but I’m not prepared to spend more than I already have.  Besides, with a little practice I think I can get what I need from this compact MV88 mic. 

 

As for tuning / tweaking for individual instruments, I appreciate your response and I figured you'd respond as you did.  But in this crazy hobby you never know what somebody might say. 

 

 

I have zero microphone technique, so in your camp there - my earliest efforts had major problems because the primitive recording gear had huge problems constantly overloading on transients; it is a fine balance.

[fas42]

shtf, at least part of what's going on is that you're overloading the mic; or the AGC is adding distortion - I've listened to a few more videos, and there's clearly glitching at peak input. Adjust the gains so that the recorder never goes into the red - forget about noise - and the clips will be even better.

 

Here's one I really liked, I can't fault this; no necessity to add ambience here, for a better experience ... ,

 

 

[Paul R]

7 minutes ago, fas42 said:

shtf, at least part of what's going on is that you're overloading the mic; or the AGC is adding distortion - I've listened to a few more videos, and there's clearly glitching at peak input. Adjust the gains so that the recorder never goes into the red - forget about noise - and the clips will be even better.

 

Here's one I really liked, I can't fault this; no necessity to add ambience here, for a better experience ... ,

 

 

I will probably hate myself for asking this, but just exactly what are those monsters? 

-Paul 

 

[shtf]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

Something's affecting the SQ - I don't see it as being purely with the micophone settings ... do you find the tonal quality consistent, or does it appear to vary, to your ears, at times? How much does it alter, subjectively, with volume setting?

 

I have zero microphone technique, so in your camp there - my earliest efforts had major problems because the primitive recording gear had huge problems constantly overloading on transients; it is a fine balance.

 

I said that I've not touched my system in 22 months and that is true.  22 months ago I swapped out some $2400 speaker cables for some new $200 speaker cables.  But that doesn't mean the sonics have remained the same since that time.   

 

Because I dabble with extreme forms of vibration mgmt, the settling in process literally can take months and even years.  For example, my second last change was 23 months ago when I remounted my 3 passive little line conditioners to my racking system using a far more extreme mounting method and it took a full 18 months (last November) before the routine (about every other day) little improvements stopped occurring as the line conditioners reached a fully settled in stage.  However, since last November there's been a number of additional sporadic little improvements that continue to occur.  In the past 2 months since I've started the in-room recordings, I've noticed I think 3 or 4 more random little but still distinct improvements.  But I would also think you'd have to have some pretty keen ears to hear a difference by the time it reached my little microphone and maybe you do.  IOW, the system's sonics have continued to evolve with each little improvement.

 

OTOH, I suspect you're correct about my potentially overloading the microphone just a bit sometimes as I walk that fine line with in-room volume levels.  In at least some of my latest recordings I've tried to reduce the volume just a tad which may be just enough to keep from overloading.  Perhaps my recording technique skills are maturing just a bit where I'm not quite flirting so much with that fine line.      Thanks for the suggest as I'll keep that in mind.

[shtf]

10 hours ago, Paul R said:

I will probably hate myself for asking this, but just exactly what are those monsters? 

-Paul 

 

 

The speakers are VMPS model RM-40.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, shtf said:

Because I dabble with extreme forms of vibration mgmt, the settling in process literally can take months and even years.  For example, my second last change was 23 months ago when I remounted my 3 passive little line conditioners to my racking system using a far more extreme mounting method and it took a full 18 months (last November) before the routine (about every other day) little improvements stopped occurring as the line conditioners reached a fully settled in stage.  However, since last November there's been a number of additional sporadic little improvements that continue to occur.  In the past 2 months since I've started the in-room recordings, I've noticed I think 3 or 4 more random little but still distinct improvements.  But I would also think you'd have to have some pretty keen ears to hear a difference by the time it reached my little microphone and maybe you do.  IOW, the system's sonics have continued to evolve with each little improvement.

 

Those "little improvements" are the world I live in, and my ears are highly attuned to what's happening - the magic world of completely convincing sound switches on when enough has been done, and to my ears you're so close, if not there already at times. Have you ever experienced "completely invisible" speakers?

 

I wish people would drop this "little microphone can't be good enough" line ... by that logic smartphones must be pieces of processor rubbish, they're not big and muscular like those good ol' monsters that filled a room, and need special air conditioning environments . Ummm, sometimes, which some Yanks have trouble understanding , small is better ...

 

Quote

 

OTOH, I suspect you're correct about my potentially overloading the microphone just a bit sometimes as I walk that fine line with in-room volume levels.  In at least some of my latest recordings I've tried to reduce the volume just a tad which may be just enough to keep from overloading.  Perhaps my recording technique skills are maturing just a bit where I'm not quite flirting so much with that fine line.      Thanks for the suggest as I'll keep that in mind.

 

Yes, I had terrible time when starting balancing between overload, and too much noise - much of my early stuff I had to go way down the other end of the house, because the mic input kept clipping.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, shtf said:

 

The speakers are VMPS model RM-40.

 

Good choice of speakers for a project that aims for top SQ: solid, heavy; main drivers don't have the suspension stiction issues that dynamic units typically suffer from.

[fas42]

Will be heading off to the local audio friend for a solid round shortly; his rigs are working in the general area of the standard of shtf's, but lots of DIY means that very low cost tweaks are used, extracting the most from the core components.

[shtf]

On 5/23/2019 at 4:08 PM, fas42 said:

 

Good choice of speakers for a project that aims for top SQ: solid, heavy; main drivers don't have the suspension stiction issues that dynamic units typically suffer from.

 

Thanks, Frank.  The RM-40's are quite a musical speaker.  I happened to come across these on eBay about 5 years.  I knew nothing about VMPS speakers, though I've heard the name many time.  When I saw them on eBay, I quickly did some research and found that my favorite reviewer Peter Moncrieff reviewed the RM-40's and said one couldn't touch their level of musicality for less than $20k.  That was good enough for me so I took the plunge and purchased them for the full asking price of $1500 plus I paid the Reno, NV resident $500 to deliver them to me here in Oregon.  

 

It seems after Brian Cheney, the owner and designer of VMPS, died, people were dumping their VMPS speakers left and right.

 

As usual, Peter Moncreiff was pretty accurate in his review.   Certainly one of my better deals. 

 

[fas42]

Pondering matters after reading some of the recent posts ... there appears little chance of the majority of the industry understanding the importance of overall integrity of the complete system for achieving high standards of subjective quality, for some time yet. Which means that people will keep playing with DSP, etc, to "turn down that damn treble!" ... a quick fix to attenuate the disturbing anomalies, distortion generated by the replay chain.

 

Sorta wonder how long it will take for the penny to drop ... ah, well ...

[Paul R]

Not at all sure you get it Frank.  

 

Pretty sure absolutely everyone knows about and accounts for synergy. Just some have trouble believing that you believe a POC $119 AIO Walmart system can sound anywhere near as satisfying or decent as say, a $750 carefully crafted system. No matter how many times you resolver connections, especially since you don't specific what connections or even what you hope to accomplish by such actions. 

 

When asked, you don't come back with specifics, just a subtly arrogant suggestion that nobody "gets it."  Puhleese.... 

 

 

[4est]

4 hours ago, Paul R said:

Not at all sure you get it Frank.  

 

Pretty sure absolutely everyone knows about and accounts for synergy. Just some have trouble believing that you believe a POC $119 AIO Walmart system can sound anywhere near as satisfying or decent as say, a $750 carefully crafted system. No matter how many times you resolver connections, especially since you don't specific what connections or even what you hope to accomplish by such actions. 

 

When asked, you don't come back with specifics, just a subtly arrogant suggestion that nobody "gets it."  Puhleese.... 

 

 

LOL. As one who HAS soldered nearly everything, it is not noticeably better than Stabilant 22A(Tweak at the time) as George has suggested. IMO, the real tell is when Frank states that his is essentially a "work bench" system. I dunno but ya'll, but my work bench has enough tools and crap on it to rattle like hell with the music.

[4est]

On 2/23/2019 at 9:53 AM, audiobomber said:

I never re-soldered any connections and my speakers vanish. You cannot tell their positioning from the listening chair with your eyes closed and well-recorded stereo sound.

 

I've had really bad connections and I can't hear the difference. I have bad connectors right now between my preamp and power amps. I am using a .1uF cap to roll of the main power amps at 80Hz. This is a temporary situation, and I had to use substandard RCA inputs between my Cardas cables and the power amps. The connection is so loose that the RCA plug falls out if you move it. Despite that, the setup sounds awesome, best I've ever had, and I've tried many ways to integrate my speakers and subs. 

 

Another example, I have to tighten my speaker connections periodically because sometimes they loosen. I have never noticed any sonic effect, the sound is the same as long as there is contact. I just do it every month or so as a preventive measure.

 

That sounds familiar...

 

[fas42]

17 hours ago, Paul R said:

Not at all sure you get it Frank.  

 

Pretty sure absolutely everyone knows about and accounts for synergy. Just some have trouble believing that you believe a POC $119 AIO Walmart system can sound anywhere near as satisfying or decent as say, a $750 carefully crafted system. No matter how many times you resolver connections, especially since you don't specific what connections or even what you hope to accomplish by such actions. 

 

When asked, you don't come back with specifics, just a subtly arrogant suggestion that nobody "gets it."  Puhleese.... 

 

 

 

Doesn't help, Paul, when you get silly about things ... like the equivalent of this post, 

 

 

It's always going to be about the current status of the overall system, and something like the gleaming red Ferrari can be readily turned into a hated lemon - if a bit of subtle 'sabotage' is applied to it ... just remove all the wheel balance weights, for example.

 

Yes, "carefully crafting" is at the heart, and something at the bottom of the pile requires too much work to compensate for the myriad issues it will have ... the Value For Effort factor kicks in at some point, and always will. A case in point - I have some active monitors here which do very nicely in raw form, compared to most at that price level - but it turned out that there was so much that "needing doing", I lost motivation to carry it through ...

 

The point I make over and over again is that human hearing is very sensitive to certain types of distortion - and people who have conventional rigs can hear it whenever they want; they just have to put on a recording they find particularly unpleasant to listen to, and then the audible impact of the playback chain not being "well sorted" is obvious ... the equivalent of the high performance vehicle with wheels that vibrate badly at higher speeds.

 

Ensuring connections are good is part of "balancing the tyres"; it's not the full story, it's just one part of going through the system, and making sure everything is working as well as it should, for optimum sound. Another analogy might be an airline who never does routine maintenance; just waits until a plane crashes before doing anything - huge plus here! Better profits and cheaper fares - saving costs by not bothering with "irrelevant stuff" ...

 

The specifics will always depend on the individual situation - the starting point is to be able to listen to playback, and say, "There's a SQ issue with this rig - what is a possible cause?" ... NOT, "Gee, another bad recording - I've gotta make sure I don't acquire more of these"

 

[Paul R]

31 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Doesn't help, Paul, when you get silly about things ... like the equivalent of this post, 

 

 

It's always going to be about the current status of the overall system, and something like the gleaming red Ferrari can be readily turned into a hated lemon - if a bit of subtle 'sabotage' is applied to it ... just remove all the wheel balance weights, for example.

 

Yes, "carefully crafting" is at the heart, and something at the bottom of the pile requires too much work to compensate for the myriad issues it will have ... the Value For Effort factor kicks in at some point, and always will. A case in point - I have some active monitors here which do very nicely in raw form, compared to most at that price level - but it turned out that there was so much that "needing doing", I lost motivation to carry it through ...

 

The point I make over and over again is that human hearing is very sensitive to certain types of distortion - and people who have conventional rigs can hear it whenever they want; they just have to put on a recording they find particularly unpleasant to listen to, and then the audible impact of the playback chain not being "well sorted" is obvious ... the equivalent of the high performance vehicle with wheels that vibrate badly at higher speeds.

 

Ensuring connections are good is part of "balancing the tyres"; it's not the full story, it's just one part of going through the system, and making sure everything is working as well as it should, for optimum sound. Another analogy might be an airline who never does routine maintenance; just waits until a plane crashes before doing anything - huge plus here! Better profits and cheaper fares - saving costs by not bothering with "irrelevant stuff" ...

 

The specifics will always depend on the individual situation - the starting point is to be able to listen to playback, and say, "There's a SQ issue with this rig - what is a possible cause?" ... NOT, "Gee, another bad recording - I've gotta make sure I don't acquire more of these"

 

 

No, I do not think so.  There are certainly bad recordings out there, and there are without doubt systems that both minimize and accentuate the flaws. The starting point is always learning what good sound is, then learning within the umbra of good sound, exactly what one likes. Jazz, symphonic, R&R, pop, vocals, or some combination thereof. 

 

Then - with equipment - buy the best equipment you can that reproduces the sound you like. From there, tweak as much as you wish, but you will be tweaking towards known things, and hopefully doing the things that make the most sense. Room treatments, even if they happen to be couches and curtains, are important. Correct positioning, yep. Lots more. 

 

All of which is is made possible mostly by purchasing the best speakers you can afford. Skimp like hell on the Amp,  buy a nice AVR. Nothing else is going to gave the same impact as those speakers. 

 

[fas42]

14 hours ago, 4est said:

LOL. As one who HAS soldered nearly everything, it is not noticeably better than Stabilant 22A(Tweak at the time) as George has suggested. IMO, the real tell is when Frank states that his is essentially a "work bench" system. I dunno but ya'll, but my work bench has enough tools and crap on it to rattle like hell with the music.

 

Note that a crucial ingredient to best sound is to always stabilise the speaker cabinets, using various types of mass loading - it's impossible with small speakers to get anything approaching realistic sound, unless this is taken seriously. So this is what is done at a very early stage with anything I work on.

 

Which immediately eliminates all the "crap rattling like crazy" nonsense ...

[fas42]

24 minutes ago, Paul R said:

 

No, I do not think so.  There are certainly bad recordings out there, and there are without doubt systems that both minimize and accentuate the flaws. The starting point is always learning what good sound is, then learning within the umbra of good sound, exactly what one likes. Jazz, symphonic, R&R, pop, vocals, or some combination thereof. 

 

In my world, "good sound" is realism. Not audiophile goodies ...

 

If one can instantly tell that the sound coming through the door from a room, or behind a curtain, is from a hifi - then it's a fail. The "magic" I'm interested in the deep sense of immersion in the energy and vibrancy of music making - technical ticking of boxes means zero if I don't experience the impact of what live sound delivers.

 

Quote

 

Then - with equipment - buy the best equipment you can that reproduces the sound you like. From there, tweak as much as you wish, but you will be tweaking towards known things, and hopefully doing the things that make the most sense. Room treatments, even if they happen to be couches and curtains, are important. Correct positioning, yep. Lots more. 

 

The thing one can tweak towards is reducing audible distortion to the point where the ear/brain accepts the illusion. If done well, then room treatments are irrelevant - these are just crutches to try and disguise the anomalies that disturb the brain, and disrupt the illusion.

 

Quote

All of which is is made possible mostly by purchasing the best speakers you can afford. Skimp like hell on the Amp,  buy a nice AVR. Nothing else is going to gave the same impact as those speakers. 

 

 

Nope. It's the combining of components in certain patterns that gives the best chances - monster amps with any old speakers will do it; or horn speakers with a tin pot amplifier is a method at the other end of the scale. If set up correctly, both of these approaches will deliver the sound of the recording, rather than "system signatures".

[shtf]

3 hours ago, Paul R said:

 

No, I do not think so.  There are certainly bad recordings out there, and there are without doubt systems that both minimize and accentuate the flaws. The starting point is always learning what good sound is, then learning within the umbra of good sound, exactly what one likes. Jazz, symphonic, R&R, pop, vocals, or some combination thereof. 

 

Then - with equipment - buy the best equipment you can that reproduces the sound you like. From there, tweak as much as you wish, but you will be tweaking towards known things, and hopefully doing the things that make the most sense. Room treatments, even if they happen to be couches and curtains, are important. Correct positioning, yep. Lots more. 

 

All of which is is made possible mostly by purchasing the best speakers you can afford. Skimp like hell on the Amp,  buy a nice AVR. Nothing else is going to gave the same impact as those speakers. 

 

 

IMO, a sure tell-tale sign of those who “don’t get it” are the ones who flippantly make statements that directly correlate performance to cost.

 

If there was any truth to your propaganda, then how does your statement hold water when my $1300 OPPO 105D  ever-so-slightly edged out over my $8500 Esoteric UX-3SE with its infamous VRDS transport?  Or especially when after utilizing the OPPO’s passive volume attenuator and its USB signal processes (to a 1TB SSD) and by-passing the OPPO’s CD transport the OPPO was significantly more musical in every aspect?

 

Better yet, how does your statement hold water when I replaced my $8k BMC int. amp with a pair of $2500 Wyred-4-Sound mini-mono-block amps that in comparison literally made the BMC (no slouch itself) sound like a $150 BestBuy receiver?

 

Answer me this.  How much more musical is a $10k preamp over a $5k preamp?  Or a $20k amp over a $10k amp?  You can’t answer it because it’s a silly question and any attempt to answer it is far more silly.

 

Such statements about price having a direct correlation to performance are not only nonsensical but they’re a dead giveaway for those who may enjoy listening to playback music but lack any discernment about what they hear.  It’s also usually a dead giveaway that such a person is an avid reader of popular high-end audio magazines.

 

If this describes you, why not do something about this as it’s entirely within your scope?

 

As for the rest of your post, because of your seemingly obvious current state, I could see no value there either.

 

[4est]

9 hours ago, shtf said:

 

IMO, a sure tell-tale sign of those who “don’t get it” are the ones who flippantly make statements that directly correlate performance to cost.

 

If there was any truth to your propaganda, then how does your statement hold water when my $1300 OPPO 105D  ever-so-slightly edged out over my $8500 Esoteric UX-3SE with its infamous VRDS transport?  Or especially when after utilizing the OPPO’s passive volume attenuator and its USB signal processes (to a 1TB SSD) and by-passing the OPPO’s CD transport the OPPO was significantly more musical in every aspect?

 

Better yet, how does your statement hold water when I replaced my $8k BMC int. amp with a pair of $2500 Wyred-4-Sound mini-mono-block amps that in comparison literally made the BMC (no slouch itself) sound like a $150 BestBuy receiver?

 

Answer me this.  How much more musical is a $10k preamp over a $5k preamp?  Or a $20k amp over a $10k amp?  You can’t answer it because it’s a silly question and any attempt to answer it is far more silly.

 

Such statements about price having a direct correlation to performance are not only nonsensical but they’re a dead giveaway for those who may enjoy listening to playback music but lack any discernment about what they hear.  It’s also usually a dead giveaway that such a person is an avid reader of popular high-end audio magazines.

 

If this describes you, why not do something about this as it’s entirely within your scope?

 

As for the rest of your post, because of your seemingly obvious current state, I could see no value there either.

 

He never mentioned price. It appears to be you that is conflating price with the "best". Contrary to whatever you might think, Paul is hardly a pusher of uber priced gear. Quite the contrary actually if you read his posts. "Best you can afford" is merely suggesting that you don't over buy/spend.

[4est]

12 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

In my world, "good sound" is realism. Not audiophile goodies ...

 

If one can instantly tell that the sound coming through the door from a room, or behind a curtain, is from a hifi - then it's a fail. The "magic" I'm interested in the deep sense of immersion in the energy and vibrancy of music making - technical ticking of boxes means zero if I don't experience the impact of what live sound delivers.

 

 

The thing one can tweak towards is reducing audible distortion to the point where the ear/brain accepts the illusion. If done well, then room treatments are irrelevant - these are just crutches to try and disguise the anomalies that disturb the brain, and disrupt the illusion.

 

 

Nope. It's the combining of components in certain patterns that gives the best chances - monster amps with any old speakers will do it; or horn speakers with a tin pot amplifier is a method at the other end of the scale. If set up correctly, both of these approaches will deliver the sound of the recording, rather than "system signatures".

Wow, you really are lost or you are merely speculating and spouting BS. IME, the wrong amplification can spoil a good speaker. I am not sure what a tin pot amplifier is, but what works well on a pair of maggies can be different than what would work on a pair of Avantegardes. Suggesting otherwise displays a lack of experience and understanding of the loads. Some amps might work well on both (Pass XA series ?), but they are likely exceptions, and not inexpensive.

[fas42]

Tin pot is just a term for an amplifier that has poor current drive capability, that starts to display major, obvious distortion once it needs to output over say 1 watt of power. Which is often what horn systems use ... .

 

The point I'm making is that the electronics need to work in a "zone of comfort" - that the levels of interference being generated by the operation of all the circuits, for listening at "enthusiastic" levels, doesn't cause significant degradation of SQ. Obviously the Magnepans need a vastly more capable amplifier than the Avantgardes, because of the difference of sensitivities - the former is an example of needing a monster amp, the latter where the tin pot variety can do the job; examples of what I was stating.

 

I have heard the most expensive Magnepan model sound pretty awful, driven by a monster tube amp - because the playback chain was not well sorted; and more recently the cheapest one do a particularly nice job of getting the sound right - because the electronics were set up a dealer who obviously understood what was important.