Multi-amplification and Active Crossover

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
This is a two-parter .. THis is the second part ..It is most relevant to the discussion at hand

The discussion has laready started on the Wilson Bi-amping thread I believe it would be more interesting to openit up to multi-amping in general.



I have been researching ways to have a good system in a challenging environement. I will not just throw money at it and expect great results . The new room will have some strong limits and challenges. I looked at Digital Room Correction and stumble upon crossovers and their design. Passive ,analog crossovers may yet be the Achilles Heel of Audio is crossover design. I began to understand that passive analog crossover are a very poor approximation of a transparent device… Populating a passive analog crossover with the best you’re your money can buy and it will remain a very poor approximation of the desired transfer function: Most drivers wok in a very small frequency range, most if not all (I know, that aside from a few ESL there exist some “full range” drivers they have a strong following but once you listen to these, you will understand why they are not so widespread) . Back to drivers. You need to send a band of frequency to a speaker drivers within its operating range. Low frequencies require large driver with large excursion , middle just middle of everything and high frequencies require smaller drivers. SO in many speakers you have at least two drivers and that is where crossovers become a problem because of so much loss in the crossovers themselves. In speaker designs the middle frequency and high frequency drivers are usually of high sensitivity easily in the mid to upper 90’s while the low frequency drivers are often much less… the filtering often requires that the output match and for that resistors are used simply to waste the power coming to the driver.. This is often done BY DESIGN and most speakers revert to that in their network.. Imagine this you just put a component with a potential for distortion just to dissipate/waste several of the expensive watts coming to it!! That what is done in many speakers and in some designs for example first order it is almost systematic, thus the often poor sensitivity of first order speakers (there are other reasons) … In addition these crossovers segment present strange and varying loads to the amplifiers and you end up with what we have been living for a long time: passive crossovers.
Active crossovers be they analog or digital do not suffer from this waste problems their job is simply to steer the frequencies to the various amplifiers not the drivers themselves and the amplifiers do see a limited band of frequencies thus able to function sending their full power potential to their connected drivers. Some of the better speakers out there force you in a bi-amping of sort , although most people don’t see it that way. The Genesis 1 , 200 and up to the 5.3 , the VR 9 and 11, The Evolution Acoustics , The Arrakis 2 have an amplifier just driving the bass and your amp drive the rest. Yet, ask anyone who has experienced speakers with active bass and they will tell you that the mains amplifier bass “flavor” continue to be apparent and believe this can be done blind… No stressing and straining and simply state that “the soundstage went wider” upon seeing the amp change ..No! Clear quick and blind ,one will hear the bass flavor of an amplifier.
Which brings me to multi-amping. It seems to me that the ideal should be multi-amping. An amplifier for each frequency range. One foe the bass driver, another for the mid and one for the HF.. In the middle a n active crossover. I prefer digital because then an entire universe opens up to the audiophile. Phase (Timing) correction, speaker correction, room correction can be done in a way that no analog can dream of and the most interesting thing is that this can be married with a full analog set-up. The best example and a system which from the opinion of those who have heard it is one of the best out there is that of Marty here at the WBF. I believe he has VTL Pre, VTL amp Pipe Dreams speakers and Two JL Audio Gotham as woofers for his system .. he also uses a TT and ALL his music goes through his TaCT and some of the crossover duties are also handled by the TaCT .. I could be mistaken… JackD201 has gone a different route his system is however tri-amped.. with the VR-9 .. The subwoofer/bass is handled by the VR amplifier but the mid-bass is driven by its on amplifier and he uses another amplifier for the upper range.. I am dying t hear his system and I am certain it sounds better than not multi-amped… I don’t know too many other persons doing the same here aside from those who have gone fully active with active speakers (Audioguy and Phelonious Phonk). The knock on Active crossovers that they are not “transparent” The reality is that they are more transparent and by order of magnitude than passive crossovers due in some part to the smaller signals going through them thus less loss and by the active segment which affords some multiplication of values… They also allow better approximation of the mathematical transfer functions.
My position is that the digital crossovers approach allows the best of all possible worlds. The mathematical functions can be replicated with a degree of precision impossible in analog. You want 32 db/oct slope but phase coherence .. No problem.. You can’t do that with analog. You want ultra-steep 300db/oct filter.. Done!.. Virtually impossible to have such steep slope with analog. You want to implement a notch filtering of that pesky ceramic resonance at 6.3 kHz? Done! You want those break ups at the low-end taken care of ..? Done too.. You want to correct for abnormal room behavior in the modal range .. Piece of cake .. Just press Enter And this can be done with most speakers. Allowing the owner to use an active crossover is an interesting option, one that Believe one bring higher performance to already superlative systems. An example. Let’s take the superlative X-2 and let’s suppose it is multi-amped, then mid-range can be a SET , bass a seriously powerful amp and up there a tube with extension .. Care would have to be taken to match the flavors of all the amplifiers but I am willing to bet such a system superior to an all passive set-up, even if one were to go the route of those now available mega expensive and mega powerful amplifiers… whose expensive watts will likely be dissipated in the resistors of the passive crossover.. It doesn’t necessarily have to be more expensive but even if it were or even if one were to go bi-amp with the upper modules driven by the SET and the low by a stout amplifier SS or Tubes (at least 300 watts/chi) and then supplement this with a trio of sub.. You would have a scary good superlative system capable of the kind of instantaneous SPL one only hears in real life .. while preserving ALL the qualities of this (or other) already superlative speaker system.. What do you think people.. your takes on this?
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
Frantz-It sounds good in theory, but as we all know there is no free lunch to eat on the playground. The devil is always in the details. Are you going to build your own speakers from scratch or are you going to buy a commercial pair of speakers and then wire their drivers to separate binding posts? Are you set up to take measurements of each driver and figure out their optimum range of performance and where they have peaks and dips in their FR in order to determine how you would set the crossover points and slope?

It would be serendipity at its best if you could use one type of amp for the bass, another type for the midrange, and yet another type of amp for the tweeters and somehow have everything coalesce into a harmonious whole. This is not a job for everyman.
 

cjfrbw

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
3,325
1,315
1,730
Pleasanton, CA
You have more or less described my system, distributed speakers with surround and four way active crossovers (analog, not digital) with SET amps for the lower midrange, upper midrange and high frequencies, and a tube mediated SS amp for the bass. 300b tubes for the surround channels.

Yes, I believe that is the best way, but I doubt you will convince many of the "box" guys with their passive crossovers, it is just the way tradition has steered home audio and too much of a paradigm shift for many audiophiles.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Frantz,

Cabasse (that was bought five years ago by Canon) will sell you your dream system for euro 80,000 (around usd 100,000) - L'Ocean.

http://www.cabasse.com/oceanus/

It was tested by the french magazine Stereo Prestige & Image this month and the reviewer was very enthusiastic : an absolute reference system. After reading the full review any audiophile would be happy to listen to it.
 

Attachments

  • aa1..jpg
    aa1..jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 716

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Frantz-It sounds good in theory, but as we all know there is no free lunch to eat on the playground. The devil is always in the details. Are you going to build your own speakers from scratch or are you going to buy a commercial pair of speakers and then wire their drivers to separate binding posts? Are you set up to take measurements of each driver and figure out their optimum range of performance and where they have peaks and dips in their FR in order to determine how you would set the crossover points and slope?

It would be serendipity at its best if you could use one type of amp for the bass, another type for the midrange, and yet another type of amp for the tweeters and somehow have everything coalesce into a harmonious whole. This is not a job for everyman.

mep

You are presently using a bi-amp system with rather good results.. Your speakers forced you into a bi-amp whether you wanted it or not and the results are good. It would be interesting if at the upper echelon such is offered and it is often offered. I remember that Magnepan did offer such an option and so did Apogee.
In truth there is a company sound. Be it Krell , Spectral ARC or Lamm,etc they tend to have a family sound resemblance... if one were to multi-amp with Lamm for example you likely would have a lamm sound... No serendipity .. You don't have to drive that far... There are also example (few) of speakers meant to be multi-amped. The Tikandis comes to mind. I believe the new Magico Q7 can be bi-amped. There is a trend toward that.. Some people going for extreme High End are multi-amping often with amplifiers of superlative distinction: Roysen here, I believe is embarking in such a project... I am not saying it is for everyone.. No it is a difficult endeavor but the benefits IMO outweighs the challenges.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Frantz,

If you have the expertise, it is the way to go. I have considered it in the past, and after asking and reading a lot decided that it was not my way. Just to summarize, I quote the answer that Paul Stubblebine wisely gave to my question about his system in another forum

http://www.tapeproject.com/smf/index.php?topic=1032.0 ( if you want to read it all)


I have moved the Magico/Bottlehead system home, and now we're using something else at the mastering studio (Focal Grande Utopias.)

The Magico is a four way system. It's from the time before Alon was making his own drivers, so it uses commercially available units. The bass, mid-bass and midrange are Focal cone drivers. The tweeter is an Aurum Cantus ribbon. I decided from the beginning to quad-amp it. Dan and PJ took a Marchand crossover and totally re-engineered it. Now of course it has the current-sourced active loads everywhere, plus they redesigned the filters and chose different tubes as needed for each part of the circuit.

The amps were designed and built by eXemplar, and have now been modified and rebuilt by Bottlehead for better sound, more consistency and higher reliability. The bass, mid-bass and midrange amps are differential 300B's. The tweeter is powered by a single ended 45. All amps use Magnequest iron. It's all connected with First Impression Music cables: power, interconnect, and speaker cables.

Besides the gear itself, there are two other stories: the acoustic design of the room, and the extensive tweaking of the system in place. These are longer stories than I want to detail here...I just mention them because those aspects are of equal importance to the final result. The tweaking in place is now being repeated for the system in its new location in my living room.

I don't recommend such a complicated approach for anyone else. But I wanted to push a certain idea to its limits, and I felt I had the resources available to do it. It took a lot of work to dial it in initially, and it takes quite a bit of work on an ongoing basis to keep it operating at peak performance.

Paul Stubblebine
Managing Director, The TapeProject
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
I look forward to multi-amp and my search for speakers it must be bi-ampable. I am set on DRC could be Lyngdorf, TaCt or DeQX. Speakers, I am very open and will audition a few candidates they must be at least bi-amped actively. I have sneered at multi-amp for a long time, however the more I have read, asked questions and listen the more I have become convined that multi-amped is the way (a little expensive and somewhat complicated to go) ... ot always easy to do but eminetly do-able if one gives oneslef the imoetus to do it.

Microstrip

I like the Cabasse concept but have not heard La Sphere. I am travelling to Eurpope during the summer and will try to give it a serious listen.. The expense is serious but in line with what one would spend for serious top of the line system... Plus it looks good ! This not just a pair of speakers but an entire (well?) integrated music system.

Paul's system is an extreme case. it doesn't need to be that complicated... This is a custom solution to the max. I don't lookat it that way.

The chain could be

Premp---- Active Crossover ------ Amp1
-------Amp 2
-------Amp3

the tis require measuring and be able to approximate the required crossover the speaker needs... With digital not a huge deal with analog a little more difficult but still do-able.. More pwoer to each driver , les waste of energy... Muc beter sound..

No it it isn't easy .. Yes it is feasible ... and should be more and ore offered as an option... but I get cjfrbw point .. Audiophles are used tothe concept of Passive crossover and their resistance has been very stout.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
I like the Cabasse concept but have not heard La Sphere. I am travelling to Eurpope during the summer and will try to give it a serious listen.. The expense is serious but in line with what one would spend for serious top of the line system... Plus it looks good ! This not just a pair of speakers but an entire (well?) integrated music system.

Paul's system is an extreme case. it doesn't need to be that complicated... This is a custom solution to the max. I don't lookat it that way.

The chain could be

Premp---- Active Crossover ------ Amp1
-------Amp 2
-------Amp3

the tis require measuring and be able to approximate the required crossover the speaker needs... With digital not a huge deal with analog a little more difficult but still do-able.. More pwoer to each driver , les waste of energy... Muc beter sound..

No it it isn't easy .. Yes it is feasible ... and should be more and ore offered as an option... but I get cjfrbw point .. Audiophles are used tothe concept of Passive crossover and their resistance has been very stout.

Please note that the L' Ocean seems a much improved version of La Sphere - all processing is 96khz versus 48kHz. When you get to listen you should ask for this one.

BTW, although I can sympathize with the idea when carried by an expert with the proper resources, IMHO none of your arguments seems to warrant " Much better sound " than the passive option. How would you check for coherency of flavors between amplifiers in such a system, as you suggested for the active X2? Using empirical knowledge about their sound type or measurements? Please note that I have nothing against such projects, but as I think that Audiophile resistance to them is well founded and very reasonable, I should support my point. ;)
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Micro

No I would warrant it with said Room Correction system. Also measures the speaker output and fine-tune with ear. Once you get to multi-amping you must be prepared to measure and tune often. it is not plug and play and to me the results would warrant the time and effort.
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,471
463
1,155
Destiny
Passive ,analog crossovers may yet be the Achilles Heel of Audio is crossover design. I began to understand that passive analog crossover are a very poor approximation of a transparent device… Populating a passive analog crossover with the best you’re your money can buy and it will remain a very poor approximation of the desired transfer function:

Hello Franz

Hogwash:D It's actually the other way round. Especially in the all analog domain. If you go all digital you have the flexability to do what you want. You need some time working in LEAP to see what I mean. You cannot take some analog active crossover off the shelf and expect it to work with a given driver set. It's just not that easy. There may be all knds of filtering going on that you don't even realize is there that an off the shelf analog simply cannot deal with. Unless you go to Marshland for example with a known voltage drive where they can make you custom crossover cards it won't work. And remember all you are doing is moving the passive components out of the speaker and into the active crossover.

Active crossovers be they analog or digital do not suffer from this waste problems their job is simply to steer the frequencies to the various amplifiers not the drivers themselves and the amplifiers do see a limited band of frequencies thus able to function sending their full power potential to their connected drivers.

No power lost through attenuation unless of course you are working with CD type horns where it is actually very easy to use a hybrid approach and do the CD compensation with passive componenets to get the right voltage drive.

I run a set of active mains in my HT. It's a 4 way set-up with pro drivers. Lots of raw power with quite a bit of finesse. I also have 3 pairs of Biamp only speakers set-up in rotation in my stereo rig. I am a big active and biamp fan and from experience it really pays to do your homework. Yeah active is great and all however it can be very difficult to get it right. If you go this way you are going to need measurement capability to properly dial things in.

Rob:)
 
Last edited:

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
mep

You are presently using a bi-amp system with rather good results.. Your speakers forced you into a bi-amp whether you wanted it or not and the results are good.

The approach used by def tech is growing rapidly in popularity, but falls far short of reaching the full potential of active designs, IMO. What it does, when done well, is properly and separately power hungry and inefficient bass drivers. This has bennies in the upper ranges as well, where the mids and highs are no longer competing with the woofers for power. A good thing, but not quite the point. Spend a lot of time listening to active, or better, crossover-free systems, and you will realize that the most audible problem in passive designs is in the critical midrange, and it's not so much what those filters subtract as what they add -- distortion, a slightly ragged edge in many systems, an edge smoothed over in many other systems.

I am a big active and biamp fan and from experience it really pays to do your homework. Yeah active is great and all however it can be very difficult to get it right. If you go this way you are going to need measurement capability to properly dial things

Agreed. This is why I think that for all but a very few, active should be an engineered solution, not a DIY one. This is also why it has failed to catch on with audiophiles, even as it has taken over pro audio. It takes away a huge chunk of what the hobby is all about.

Tim
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
This is also why it has failed to catch on with audiophiles, even as it has taken over pro audio. It takes away a huge chunk of what the hobby is all about.

Tim

You got that right. You don't get to choose speaker wire or amps. Only interconnects (usually balanced). And with some examples (my current speakers) you don't even get to select power cords (at least the super fancy expensive ones).

This is my first trip into active tri-amped speakers (Seaton Catalyst) and the first thing I heard was speed, control and dynamics (all kinds). I addition, these speakers just don't come apart even at ear-crushing levels. My guess is (and that is all it is) that direct control of the amp on the driver provides much of what I hear.

If I remember correctly, the Mark Levinson HQD (Hartley/Quad/Decca) from the early 70's was tri-amped. That system was like $30,000 in 1972 !!!!
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
You got that right. You don't get to choose speaker wire or amps. Only interconnects (usually balanced). And with some examples (my current speakers) you don't even get to select power cords (at least the super fancy expensive ones).

Correct. Not that there's anything right or wrong here, system-building can be fun and is a huge part of this hobby, regardless of how often we say it's the music that matters. System building can happen in the active domain, but it's expensive and requires a lot of expertise. I know I don't have it. I let great design engineers do my synergizing.

This is my first trip into active tri-amped speakers (Seaton Catalyst) and the first thing I heard was speed, control and dynamics (all kinds). I addition, these speakers just don't come apart even at ear-crushing levels. My guess is (and that is all it is) that direct control of the amp on the driver provides much of what I hear.

That's more than half of it. The rest, at least what I hear, is midrange clarity. Makes sense, as many two-ways and most three-ways cross over right in the middle of critical music territory, sticking a nest of resistive passive components right in the path. The most successful passives, to my ear, use very wide range midrange drivers that can cross over very high, where less audible damage is done. But while that will eliminate much of the midrange grunge, it won't help driver control.

Tim
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
I do advocate multi-amps but i is not for everone. The level of complexity increases dramtically with the number of amps. Bi-amp however brings numerous benefits without intractable complexity. Most audiophiles know for example that bass requires more power than the rest of the spectrum... You may love a SET but it is clear that in the province of bas SET are not that superlative.. So relieving the SET from having to move the hungry driver can only be beneficial to the reproduction... This has come to me as almost a necessity , mynext speaker must be at least bi-ampable and preferably multi-amp.. I wouldn't mind if it has powered woofers, that would make the set-up less daunting.

Leaving the duty to one amp in the bass and another elsewhere relieves amps and drivers from many things. It is true that the active crossover used must be as transparent as possible... . For those with amplified woofer, it is not such a HUGE undertaking to match levels. We audiophiles love to talk about synergy and I believe it is in the interest of those who are selling gear to keep this going. My expereince however with speakers with powered woofer have taught me that the contribution of the amps driving "elsewhere" is felt in the bass despite the built-in amplifier. The Genesis II and the 5 with which I was extremely familiar, would tell you exactly the flavor of the "elsewhere" amp in the low bass ... Which is to tell you that most of the bass flavor resides up there in the mid-bass not the very low bass...


Robh3..

Not hogwash. While this is true that most analog active crossovers are not drop-in replacement for a passive one in the speaker, it wasn't so much my point as to say that the crossover should be active and not passive. I see no problem with a speaker designed with an option toward active bi or multi-amping. That can only provide higher performance. Are you trying to tell me that precious watts are not wasted in level padding in speakers passive crossovers? That would be hogwash :). Digital filters and there I agree with you can emulate ANY passive crossover you care to throw at hem and do better in term of filtering , transfer function and all kind of responses.. No! These are not perfect but in the imperfect world of filters.. Digital ones tend to be better.

Now if a person is entirely anti-digital.. not much can be done there except to enjoy the status quo ...
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) If I remember correctly, the Mark Levinson HQD (Hartley/Quad/Decca) from the early 70's was tri-amped. That system was like $30,000 in 1972 !!!!

A good friend of mine built such a system, including the LN2 crossovers, perfect amplifiers optimized for each type of speakers (ML, Beddinni and Electrocompaniet) and all the needed ancillaries. The day he got it working and finely tuned he lost interest in the system and moved to a pair of full range electrostatics. I helped him at that time to assemble the HQD, and understood why he was disapointed.

The system was impressive - finely tuned and fantastic bass, middle and treble zones, but was a real proof that a system should be much more that the sum of its parts. It lacked coherency, and although impressive with some recordings, it was not the type of system you want for all the time.

IMHO, blending drivers and boxes is not just designing the perfect transfer functions in a crossover. It is much more than that - unless some of the designers of active speakers understand it, they will go on complaining that audiophiles are the bad guys. :)

Please understand I am addressing the industry, not the DIY. They are separate worlds, with different rules and aims.
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
(...) Digital filters and there I agree with you can emulate ANY passive crossover you care to throw at hem and do better in term of filtering , transfer function and all kind of responses.. No! These are not perfect but in the imperfect world of filters.. Digital ones tend to be better.

Now if a person is entirely anti-digital.. not much can be done there except to enjoy the status quo ...

FrantZ,

It depends on what you consider better. Loudspeakers units are not ideal loads. Try to damp the counter EMF force in an active filter system

And you view on digital seems to ignore all the problems and limitations of current digital filtering techniques - very recently I read a new paper on novel algorithms for digital audio filtering explaining what was wrong with previous approaches.

I am not against digital or innovative solutions - but I do not believe in dogmas or audio miracles. :)
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
IMHO, blending drivers and boxes is not just designing the perfect transfer functions in a crossover. It is much more than that - unless some of the designers of active speakers understand it, they will go on complaining that audiophiles are the bad guys

Quality designers of active systems understand coherency well enough. I have heard some active studio monitors that are more coherent at 4 feet than many full range speakers are at 4 yards. Now the other question: Do audiophile semi-DIY-ers cooking their own active systems with digital processors, mix and match amplifiers and speakers not necessarily designed for active implementation understand it as well? I'm less confident.

Tim
 

Robh3606

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2010
1,471
463
1,155
Destiny
Hello Franz

Are you trying to tell me that precious watts are not wasted in level padding in speakers passive crossovers? That would be hogwash:)

No not at all. Even with a modest 3db of padding you just gave up 1/2 your power. So any padding is just heating things up.

What exactly do you plan to do?? Are you going to go out and purchase and set of active monitors?? Are you planning on taking a current set of speakers and changing them over to a biamp or an all active configuration??

it wasn't so much my point as to say that the crossover should be active and not passive.

Always ?? Why?? Do you realize how much complexity and cost you are adding?? I am an active speaker and biamp advocate but it doesn't always make sense. There is nothing wrong with a well implimented passive crossover. They can be just a coherrent and transparent as actives. To say that one is always better is rather short sighted IMHO.

Rob:)
 

microstrip

VIP/Donor
May 30, 2010
20,806
4,698
2,790
Portugal
Quality designers of active systems understand coherency well enough. I have heard some active studio monitors that are more coherent at 4 feet than many full range speakers are at 4 yards. Now the other question: Do audiophile semi-DIY-ers cooking their own active systems with digital processors, mix and match amplifiers and speakers not necessarily designed for active implementation understand it as well? I'm less confident.

Tim

Tim,

You said it all - quality designers. This is the key difference.

DIY people follow different rules - they are not subjected to being scrutinized by general opinion, and tune and optimize what they feel most important for themselves. They do not need to follow market rules, and we can enjoy and even learn a lot from their forums and debates. See for example www.diyaudio.com

Sometimes I feel I would (also) be a happy man on that side of audio.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
You said it all - quality designers. This is the key difference.

Of course, but it's not at all rare. Sure there are cheap active monitors designed for use in home project studios that have lots of compromises. Some even have deliberate colorations. But I honestly believe much of pro audio is designed by top-notch engineers to very high standards, at extremely high price/performance ratios.

Tim
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing