Fair enough...I get that driving in my car...it has a BOSE system, you know and it rocks out pretty well
ying and yang--Lamm ML3 and darTZeel 458
- Thread starter Mike Lavigne
- Start date
Fair enough...I get that driving in my car...it has a BOSE system, you know and it rocks out pretty well
All of them except ruler flat. Thing is, if I just want vocals and strings, I can do quads with valves, no need to spend too much. Also if I compromise given my room and budget, it is good to say I go to live concerts and have a reference and have compromised on that reference and somebody else's system does that reference much better.
People seem to have their own system as a reference, irrespective of whether they go to live or not. Those with SETs keep on on SETs. Marc had his SET reference before he started attending live shows and after that too. So either he knew what's a live sound before, or he is still wrong, or plain coincidence. Peter has his resolution reference, which is a Magico Pass characteristic. Those who need a live reference should reset their references by selling off their system and not owning one
. No kidding. It took me 6 months or more after not having speakers to override my home sound template with a real sound template, till then irrespective of what you hear in the hall after you come home and play your own system for a few hours over a few days it is your home system sound that enters in your subconscious. And we all judge other sounds by that template in the subconscious.Just to add to your guitar story, my ex is a very talented violinist and we made some solo recordings on R2R tape with her playing Paganini Caprices on a Stradivarius. The room was 20 square meters and I had the mic about 3.5 meters from her...at my listening position. That damn sonic cannon was so powerful that it was all I could do to keep the signal level within range to prevent too much tape saturation. At times it made my ears pulsate. A single violin...
Do people actually think of these things in isolation? Isn't it about the total package and what sounds best to the listener? That's my measuring stick.
Hi...its not so much that they are in absolute isolation...its just that (at least for me)...i was prepared to go for bookshelves and sub because midrange magic and all-out bass were greater priorities for me than ruler-flat performance. I was in college and midrange magic and bass were my 2 priorities over all-out extension, upper treble or clarity.
So I went with Celestion SL6si and a sub. It worked well for me...and in fact i then went Guarneri + Velodyne DD18 after that 10 years later. So the formula worked for me where other more full-range/properly balanced speakers did not have the midrange tonality/beauty of the G's...nor the all-out bass attack during movies of the big Velodyne.
It was only when the budget grew substantially greater that I was able to go for a more full-range speaker like the SF Strads when all the lower mids/upper bass started to fill in along with dynamic. And then the big Wilsons with detail, noise floor, effortless all-out dynamic range, etc.
Going back to your question...it was as a result of those priorities that i did not look at competitors to the Celestion + Sub combo that were probably more flat, more even and certainly better in the upper bass. Those similarly priced speakers did not have the refinement of the Celestion nor the all-out power of the sub...but they were certainly more coherent across the spectrum. Hence it was my priorities that made this determination.
Thanks for the explanation. Seems like you have been able to work your way up to something that sounds right for you.
Thanks...funny, all those many years ago i did think about the Vandersteen 1Bs, i think which were about the same price as the Celestion SL6si plus sub. Clearly you have their flagship...have read great things about them. Enjoy.
As far as I read the reason of debates is on a very different issue - during many years Mike had a stable bullet proof preamplifer-amplifier system, and suddenly he broke it. His change opened the audiophile pandora box - and we are not debating Mike system any more, we are back to our more basic debates, as always mainly trying to explain our own preferences.
For me please:
- Deep propulsive bass
- Effortless all out dynamic range
- Midrange magic
Interesting...i never really appreciated true all-out dynamic range until much, much later. I knew volume (ie, LOUD), but it was under pressure and looking back, i can tell you the speakers were creaking under the volume. But it had bass and midrange magic (until it got stressed), but at 20, it seemed great.
Once i heard speakers that excelled at all-out EFFORTLESS dynamic range, it was a game-changer for me and HOW and WHAT I listen for in a system.
All amplifiers have different grounding schemes and that effects the clarity of the reproduction and this pertains to the total system. So when a different amplifier is substituted you could have more or less clarity which effects every part of the music. Also the more clarity the greater the dispersion of the speakers...where you no longer have a limit to the soundstage even though the music has moved foward.
My Vac amps use to have more clarity,but now my SS amps deliver everything the tubes amps did..plus way more. Why a parallel grounding circuit, which fills the music reproduction with life,emotion,enthusiasm,and a realism. When I say clarity,I mean in focused sense,being able to hear everything in a realistic dimension as it was captured by the microphone. Listening as in the audience is a different perspective. The microphone perspective allows me to judge how good my system is...although still not perfect.
Hey RogerD. Is there anything you miss about your VACs? Seems not at all. I dont either relative to the lesser CJ tube amp i used to run...this is in comparison to the 14-year old Gryphon Antileon let alone my current amp. But given Mike L scratching his SET tube itch, I do have to say it would be fun to try big Lamm SETs on the Wilsons.
I am so into clarity right now..unless I send my Vacs back to Kevin for a update to a improve the grounding...the SS amps are better right now. I would like to see how the Lamms compare as far as being able to handle large complex dynamics. I am a firm believer in lots of reserve power...regardless of speaker efficiency. My amplifiers are 60 watts class A and 1200 watts AB with a 25 amp circuit breaker. I have never experienced any clipping.
Totally agree. Even among those who use unamplified live music as reference, tastes in assembling a stereo system differ greatly. It's all a personal thing, there is no one truth. Why? Because we all extract for our experience the things that matter most to each of us, and according to these priorities come to vastly different system configurations. I personally, even though I have heard a great variety of systems, always come back to building on the monitor/sub experience in my medium-sized room, but I totally understand when others go for something else.
But to claim, for example, that SETs and horns should be closest to the truth for everyone is preposterous. Just like it would be preposterous for me to claim that an optimized monitor/sub system is the holy grail (even in a medium-sized room, forget a large one), or for others to claim that it can only big dynamic multi-ways, or ribbons, with SS amplification.
We could go the rounds here on possible configurations, no system -- regardless of cost -- reproduces everything perfectly, what matters is that each of our systems reproduces as optimally as possible (finances also matter to most of us) the things that are most important to each of our very personal experiences, and is good enough in all other areas.
Last edited:
I) OBJECTIVES
I am confident that the most efficient and productive discussion would start by each of us declaring our audio objective from the list of four, and, if a member considers himself to subscribe to more than one of the four objectives, to attempt to approximate for us the relative importance of those multiple objectives.
1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
2) reproduce exactly what is on the master tape,
3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and
4) create a sound that seems live.
II) MUSICAL PREFERENCES
Once objectives are declared, and only after objectives are declared, then I think the next logical step is to declare the type of music in which we primarily are interested (if, and only if, there is a preference for one or more types of music over other types of music).
III) SONIC PRIORITIES
As a third step in this analytical framework I think your list makes perfect sense.
I think this analytical framework -- which I am happy to keep re-proposing
-- would avoid a large amount of unnecessary confusion and needless posts and endless "talking past" each other.Similar threads
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- matthias
- DonH50
- Basile: Locrian Audio
- DividedSky
- igrek
- puroagave
- Michael S.
- bonzo75
- tsaett
- thekong
- ticktock
- Mike Lavigne
- Atmasphere
- Kingsrule
- Raypok
- af428
- GroovySauce
- tubes59
- PhP
- lscangus
- Bonesy Jonesy
- Mark212121
- dsyzling
- Kingrex
- bryans
- AccidentalHiFier
- Peakmgt
- dminches
- kswanson27
- Juiced
- Bobalob
- lamechops
- Downtheline
- driftingbunnies
- EscritorJuan
- alank46
- oldmustang
- Stefan
- Sablon Audio
- DW101
- Blake
- son
- ADGold
- kmyl
- Stbo
- treitz3
- Moladiego
- danfl75
- cal3713
- Geoffkait
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |