Jump to content

Digi&Analog Fan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Digi&Analog Fan

  • Rank
    Sophomore Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I liked the High Fidelity music reviews also. However, for a while they must not have really taken rock music seriously. For a while they classified classical music under the bold type category "SERIOUS" and rock under "LIGHT." Someone in the N.Y.Times made the praising remark that the Beatles were at least as melodic as Schubert. A classical reviewer for the magazine commented about seeing it, "after a week in a straightjacket they let me out."
  2. All you really need is redbook cd. If you hear its full capability, you will be amused at how people used to complain about CD sound. It was the players, not the cds themselves at fault usually. SACD, with its unbelievably higher sampling rate was a bit of a disappointment IMO. Not that it wasn't noticeably smoother and a bit more open, often. But with a sampling rate that dwarfed red book I was expecting big things. Another thing surprising is that in its first year, I read where the Stones Let It Bleed was the best selling SACD title. You would have thought audiophiles would have chosen something even better recorded. Great music though.
  3. I had a pair of circa 1979 top of the line Technics SB 7000A as a teenager. They were phase and time aligned and had a 13 inch woofer, competing in timing with a small open space staggered mounted midrange and tweeter. They did have something about them that was kind of special in that way, but upon hearing some speakers that were more natural sounding, I soon realized what Japanese coloration was all about. I hooked them up to a second system using a Sansui G series receiver and a turntable with a Micro Acoustics electret phono cartridge. Still in my mind, one of the worst combinations ever. I couldn't even stand that combination and sound. Although the Technics speakers I enjoyed in my youth in another system, which didn't make it sound harsh and analytical. Tell me more about those.
  4. Re: Allan F. "It would have been obvious to you that 12 or so tiers of stacking would be unstable" What?? I could have stacked them twice as many if I would have used glue. Being such a tall eye sore, I wasn't committed to having it there permanently, so the glue stayed in the drawer. The player survived the tumble. The tier stacking might have made around a 50% improvent, but most of my improvement comes from doing all sorts of other things. Both outside and inside of equipment. The CD 3400 was not exactly crappy equipment back then and neither was the rest of my equipment. Joe Grado (of cartridge fame) was the guy who brought the CD 3400 player to the attention of the Stereophile reviewer who reviewed it. Considering the bass dominant music I was playing, along with the fact that the player was a featherweight light portable player, it obviously was even more prone to rattle and vibrate than a player of more substantial weight; which themselves are very prone to vibration and whose sound quality can be more than doubled, if you really know what you are doing. My sound with compact discs, (using different equipment) is exceptionally open. People have commented more than once, " why are your speakers on the floor and the sound on the ceiling?"
  5. I have never the cigar ring combined with felt idea. Combining a hard material with a soft material sometimes gives good results. Think of vibration as impact. What would be good at damping impact? I have recently looked in the meat market section at the grocery store for animal bone.
  6. Better still I hear, was the Yamaha NS 2000. They were above the NS 1000 in the line, but dealers in America had to special order them. A pair popped up on ebay within memory for around 3 grand.The Japanes sometimes made something unavailable to people in North America. Audio Technica decades ago made a model 180 cartridge, but in America you would have thought the top of the line was the 170, since they didn't export their top model the 180, to America, but did export it elsewhere.
  7. There was an article I read a long time ago that claimed half speed mastering degraded the phase and timing of the recordings. It went into a big technical explanation. I only had one music title that I had both the regular LP and the half speed master LP. I played them both and sure enough, the regular LP pressing had noticeably better openness. Regardless of the audiophile LP sounding cleaner quieter, crisper and clearer. Most people think half speed mastering started happening in the late 1970s. I have lps that were half speed masteered from the late 1950s.
  8. Power has nothing whatsoever to do with it; at all !! A driver has a rise time capability that's only so fast and if given more power the driver will get louder; but same slow poke or same speedster. Simple as that. Does not affect a thing, in the way of speed. It is what it is. Lowered moving mass somewhere is why we have stats/planers, berrylium, titanium, drivers etc.,ribbon drivers, Walsh drivers, moving coil cartridges, speakers with smaller twin woofers...the list goes on. That lower mass drivers have rise time advantages over higher mass drivers is not a "radical new idea". It was an accepted thing long before we, or any of any of our parents were born. Why in the world "wouldn't" something lighter have "overcoming inertia advantages". I even notice that "people" who have more mass, are usually slower and have more problems overcoming inertia. So far I have stuck with dynamic speakers. I might like the slight wood coloration that most box speakers have to a more or lesser degree, and I think the best of them are fast enough. But if I ever went to stats, with that kind of instantaneous stop and start capability, would I ever be able to go back if I missed some of the older type speakers quality?
  9. The rocket WOULD be faster than the arrow, but the arrow doesn't have the help of thrust from a BE-3 rocket engine on its behind. A seriously terrible analogy.
  10. Lets put it this way. If there was a 15 inch woofer that sounded somewhat fast, and if there was a 7 inch woofer designed by the same person, using the same principles and quality of materials, and if there was a huge odds board like at the Kentucky Derby; the odds board would be lit up in favor of the smaller woofer being faster because of less moving mass... I guess just how fast of a rise time a driver has, compared to other drivers, should be left up to accurate thinking audiophiles who've listened to and personally compared hundreds of different sized drivers. Those kind of people are out there. Electrostatics and planar speakers are universally considered faster than dynamic drivers because of the very light thin material they use to produce sound. Of course they might do other things not to someone's liking,, but they are faster: mainly because of less moving mass. Its been pretty much universal knowledge "since at least the 1950's". The first electrostatics transducer was invented, well over 100 years ago. They are advanced and they are fast.
  11. As Fas42 has correctly pointed out, vibrational shaking of even slight degrees can degrade sound quality. Just to what degree? I guess only us guys who have been experimenting with it for decades know for sure. One guy skeptically asked me one time, " you mean to tell me that if I can find all kind of little doo dads like you have, I can improve my sound by like 50%?" I shook my head and told him "its a way bigger figure than that!"
  12. Re: Kal.Respectfully, If you go back and read my wording, I said the HQD system combined stacked Quad 57 speakers with 24 inch Hartley subwoofers "among other things." The "among other things" driver wise, being the Decca tweeters, which were meant to increase dispersion, among other things. I am known to have thoroughness like Columbo and Roseanne Rosannadanna combined. There is "at least" one thread on the internet from long ago where Stereophile actually re-visits and listens to the HQD system. They mention that the system has a not ideal warmth peak caused by stacking the Quad 57 speakers and they show graphs, 48 inches of woofer probably had something to do with that too. It is not only the Quads though. I have experimented lots with stacking many different dynamic speakers through the years and there has not been one single time that the sound did not suddenly pick up loads of warmth, (and bass), including bass deepness. That's just what the doctor ordered sometimes, but I have at other times wished that the frequency response could just stay the same and just make the predictable gains in instrument and image size, decreased distortion from more drivers sharing the volume and breezing, and increased dynamic range and ease. The soundstage depth always improves also; not just image height. Stacking bookshelf speakers in particular, can be a very good thing. Re: the guy with Wilson speakers with adjustable height. I actually thought you were kidding. I always have something under my speakers, and the things have various thickness and produce different heights.
  13. I think the big question is: since sound always comes from what makes the sound and the location of what made the sound in the first place; can direct sound (not echoes) be manipulated so that it sounds like its coming from the opposite direction? When we hear a singer who sounds like they are in the middle of your frontal stereo image, it is because his voice is in the right and left channei with equal volume, so it sounds like its coming from the middle. But if a sound was only coming out of the left channel, could it be manipulated somehow to make it sound like its coming out of the right channel, without of course adding its sound to the right channel? Making sounds from the front, sound like they are coming from behind you would be the equivalent of this seemingly impossible feat. I haven't gotten a hold of some of the discs claimed to be able to do this yet, but if they do, I will be a believer and say "WOW". "Except for echoes or weird acoustics, I thought sound had to sound like its coming from where its actually coming from and have a source in that location."
  14. There was something called the Levinson HQD System years ago. Ultra expensive for its time. It combined, among other things stacked Quad 57 electrostatics with if I remember correctly, 24 inch Hartley subwoofers. Were the huge subs able to keep up with the fast electrostats? Or were they ridiculously lagging behind? Never heard it, maybe some of you have. The biggest sounding amps I ever heard, all had exceptionally big transformers. That's one I am more sure about. Any exception, equipment wise to that observation?
  15. Not that I'm anywhere near out of material, but this kind of correlates with "size" and its expectations.True story by the way. Many years ago I put an ad in the cities newpaers classified to sell a pair of speakers. Someone called me on the phone and I gave them directions to my house. I left the back door open (remember those days) and a petite youngish woman led a larger middle aged man through the door and into my living room. Her one hand was on his forearm and her other hand was higher up near his shoulder. He was obviously blind. I said would you like a demonstration? I can turn them on. The guy politely shook his head no as the girl uninterruptably led him toward the speaker. He reached over and felt the speaker, sizing it up with his hands from every conceivable angle, and then he stood up and shook his head to the girl "no" and the girl helped him turn around, back toward the door. "Only a hundred bucks" I said, but they kept walking and went out the door. I watched them leave and sat back on my couch. Something bothered me. There was something wrong that I couldn't put my finger on, that I couldn't figure out. Then it dawned on me and hit me like a ton of bricks. She led him into the drivers seat, and she went around to the passenger seat.... Many years later, in another state, I did see a blind man riding a ten speed bike on the sidewalk. His cane was rapidly going back and forth to beat sixty.
  • Create New...