"If you don't have a $200k [speaker]..."

[Lagonda]

Or 32 12 inch !

 

[DasguteOhr]

Or 32 12 inch ! View attachment 115233

Structure of the house is threatened. the plaster will definitely fall off the wall at "trentemøller last resort lp" i like that kind of thing..cool

 

[Lagonda]

Structure of the house is threatened. the plaster will definitely fall off the wall at "trentemøller last resort lp" i like that kind of thing..cool

This little piggy built a brick house, it will rattle but not crumble !

 

[JackD201]

It shows a lot more to me. I enjoyed my old system very much after I removed the corrupting accessories and improved the set up. The new system simply sounds better to me. I disagree with Ron's proclamation that music genre drives speaker choice. Perhaps it did for him, but not for me.

The last time I had my hearing checked, two years ago, it was the same as it was years earlier, at least according to their limited testing range based on speech recognition. No, my hearing is not improving, but my values have changed, and I am a more careful listener with a keener focus and understanding of my reference.

You and others can not seem to accept that some people actually do hear more information from all recordings on a system with horns, including with amplified rock music. Also, there are alternatives to the mainstream HIEND industry and people can discover those and prefer them. The latest and greatest advocated in glossy magazines, behind long lines at shows, and defended freely here, is not the only choice.

My system choice was based on a full range of music genres, and I used that range when auditioning the components and during set up and fine tuning.

Peter with all due respect. Your gear save Ching Cheng and the unreviewed to my knowledge AS, were all considered some of the latest and greatest by the mainstream Hiend press and many of their readers at some point in time. I've represented Lamm since 2007 so I know Vladimir's accolades well.

 

[PeterA]

Peter with all due respect. Your gear save Ching Cheng and the unreviewed to my knowledge AS, were all considered some of the latest and greatest by the mainstream Hiend press and many of their readers at some point in time. I've represented Lamm since 2007 so I know Vladimir's accolades well.

Jack, I know that you sell Lamm and that it was once well reviewed. I would love to know more about the rest of my system, but not in this thread. I would welcome any information via a private message about my gear and how it was received in the HIEND press. Thank you.

 

[Ron Resnick]

This is where we differ. I want my system (not just speakers) to sound good on all the music I play, and also music I do not. Friends come over with their records of stuff I do not like. It still sounds good to me and more importantly to them.

For clarification, the notion of "sounds good to me" has little to do with, and only confuses, my theory about the connection between musical genre preference and loudspeaker choice. If the metric were sounds merely "good" then there would be no theory at all, because many genres sound merely "good" on many topologies of loudspeakers.

 

[DasguteOhr]

This little piggy built a brick house, it will rattle but not crumble !

I wouldn't be so sure about that, playing this song goes into infrasound. my favorite track for car hifi test be careful with volume

 

[JackD201]

The Vitavox, legendary. 3012R same.Even the carts Peter. All well regarded. None cheap either then or now. All I am trying to point out is that that club may not be the prevailing choice of most but it isn't a big secret nor the approach unique.

 

[PeterA]

It depends on how high your demands are. For me, the best midrange is a quad esl 57. I don't know of any horn or other loudspeaker principle in the world that reproduces voices so naturally. never aggressive with a body that gives you goosebumps unless the recording is botched. i find voices to be a very difficult part because it is so broadband in frequency.
Exsample

P.S
even bad news on the radio sounds better with it

Just listening to their voices at the beginning of the video is a good sign of things to come.

 

[PeterA]

For clarification, the notion of "sounds good to me" has little to do with, and only confuses, my theory about the connection between musical genre preference and loudspeaker choice. If the metric were sounds merely "good" then there would be no theory at all, because many genres sound merely "good" on many topologies of loudspeakers.

How would you describe it? How must it sound?

 

[PeterA]

The Vitavox, legendary. 3012R same.Even the carts Peter. All well regarded. None cheap either then or now. All I am trying to point out is that that club may not be the prevailing choice of most but it isn't a big secret nor the approach unique.

Thank you for explaining Jack. Yes, all well regarded by enthusiasts, I was just not sure it was from the mainstream press. The 3012R was quickly dismissed as the SME V was released and celebrated, but not by those who compared the two on a good system.

It is interesting to see what happens to the availability of some of this stuff after people hear it and discuss it. Part of me wishes the only discussion was of the latest and greatest, so the best from the past would still be readily available.

 

[microstrip]

This is where we differ. I want my system (not just speakers) to sound good on all the music I play, and also music I do not. Friends come over with their records of stuff I do not like. It still sounds good to me and more importantly to them.

It seems you do not have the concept of optimum - IMO something mandatory in the high-end. My system is optimized for the music I play , I am not worried about imagining how it sounds with music I do not play and fortunately my friends come to listen to music I also can enjoy.

I have listened to enough great top systems and recordings to know that there is not a system that can please optimally the diversity that artists and sound engineers pack in each recording. Assembling stereo systems in rooms implies compromises, even if funds and knowledge are unlimited.

 

[Ron Resnick]

How would you describe it? How must it sound?

Under the theory, for audiophiles to whom it applies, an audiophile would find the reproduction of his/her primary musical genre interest to sound superior -- according to that audiophile's personal high-end audio objective -- on a particular model of that loudspeaker type.

I am focused on that tipping point: that dispositive smidgeon of subtle superiority which causes the audiophile to pull the trigger and write a check for that particular type of loudspeaker over other types of loudspeakers.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

It seems you do not have the concept of optimum - IMO something mandatory in the high-end. My system is optimized for the music I play , I am not worried about imagining how it sounds with music I do not play and fortunately my friends come to listen to music I also can enjoy.

I have listened to enough great top systems and recordings to know that there is not a system that can please optimally the diversity that artists and sound engineers pack in each recording. Assembling stereo systems in rooms implies compromises, even if funds and knowledge are unlimited.

disagree. nothing new you and i don't see the same picture here. you have made the same claim to me many times. respect it's your strong opinion.

i don't like all music equally, i have my favorites. but not yet found a type of music or format that my system can't handle, and get out of the way of. each of my sources are quite optimized. and i have plenty of instances where visitors have a chance to throw me curveballs. last weekend had 25 visitors for 5+ hours and we went all over the map. not all great recordings for sure. but nothing that was not well represented.

this Sunday have 10 more visitors where we will do the same.

please be specific as to in which particular ways you think my system might not deliver on particular music or format.

 

[Elliot G.]

disagree. nothing new you and i don't see the same picture here. you have made the same claim to me many times. respect it's your strong opinion.

i don't like all music equally, i have my favorites. but not yet found a type of music or format that my system can't handle, and get out of the way of. each of my sources are quite optimized. and i have plenty of instances where visitors have a chance to throw me curveballs. last weekend had 25 visitors for 5+ hours and we went all over the map. not all great recordings for sure. but nothing that was not well represented.

this Sunday have 10 more visitors where we will do the same.

please be specific as to in which particular ways you think my system might not deliver on particular music or format.

I agree a system is ignorant . It has no intelligence and does not know what music it is playing. IMO any system that is tailored to a singular type of music is a system that is colored. It may be nice to want to hear all your music at say Carnegie Hall but it all wasnt recorded or played there. SO if this is what you have you are choosing coloration. Of course if this is what you like then do it but I don't think anything that is colored on purpose is a great system.
Mike, having listened to your system and having played DJ for a couple of days it does all music well IMO. We played small and solo and large and full scale of different genres and it did it all.

 

[microstrip]

It shows a lot more to me. I enjoyed my old system very much after I removed the corrupting accessories and improved the set up. The new system simply sounds better to me. I disagree with Ron's proclamation that music genre drives speaker choice. Perhaps it did for him, but not for me.

Ok. I have told before that your reports of many years ago on your old system were much more enthusiastic an enjoyable that the current ones - you focused in your system, not on comparing with the old one and bickering current systems and audiophile practices of others.

The last time I had my hearing checked, two years ago, it was the same as it was years earlier, at least according to their limited testing range based on speech recognition. No, my hearing is not improving, but my values have changed, and I am a more careful listener with a keener focus and understanding of my reference.

Yes, it the difference between hearing and listening.

You and others can not seem to accept that some people actually do hear more information from all recordings on a system with horns, including with amplified rock music. Also, there are alternatives to the mainstream HIEND industry and people can discover those and prefer them. The latest and greatest advocated in glossy magazines, behind long lines at shows, and defended freely here, is not the only choice.

Experienced audiophiles having owned Quad ESL speakers (57 or 63) will smile at your absolute statement. Particularly because "more information" is an extremely complex concept when used subjectively. Do you really want discriminate all the manipulations and artifacts used to create the stereo recording? Do you really want to be able to identify the underground noises or traffic noise in recordings?

My system choice was based on a full range of music genres, and I used that range when auditioning the components and during set up and fine tuning.

Did you listen to Rolling Stones, other than Angie , really loud or Klaus Schulze?

 

[PeterA]

Under the theory, for audiophiles to whom it applies, an audiophile would find the reproduction of his/her primary musical genre interest to sound superior -- according to that audiophile's personal high-end audio objective -- on a particular model of that loudspeaker type.

OK thank you. It must “sound superior“.

 

[PeterA]

It seems you do not have the concept of optimum - IMO something mandatory in the high-end. My system is optimized for the music I play , I am not worried about imagining how it sounds with music I do not play and fortunately my friends come to listen to music I also can enjoy.

I have listened to enough great top systems and recordings to know that there is not a system that can please optimally the diversity that artists and sound engineers pack in each recording. Assembling stereo systems in rooms implies compromises, even if funds and knowledge are unlimited.

Perhaps we have different opinions about compromises. It certainly seems as though we have different values and goals.

 

[microstrip]

disagree. nothing new you and i don't see the same picture here. you have made the same claim to me many times. respect it's your strong opinion.

i don't like all music equally, i have my favorites. but not yet found a type of music or format that my system can't handle, and get out of the way of. each of my sources are quite optimized. and i have plenty of instances where visitors have a chance to throw me curveballs. last weekend had 25 visitors for 5+ hours and we went all over the map. not all great recordings for sure. but nothing that was not well represented.

this Sunday have 10 more visitors where we will do the same.

please be specific as to in which particular ways you think my system might not deliver on particular music or format.

Mike,

I am not addressing can't handle or well represented, but playing optimally - very different things. For example, you have hosted my ML3's for some time - although I never listened to your system I can risk that for some types of chamber music probably you preferred it to the Dartzeel's in your system.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

I am not addressing can't handle or well represented, but playing optimally - very different things. For example, you have hosted my ML3's for some time - although I never listened to your system I can risk that for some types of chamber music probably you preferred it to the Dartzeel's in your system.

i absolutely appreciated what the ML3's did in my system. loved them even. they are special sounding. and understand how you view them.

but that is different (the particular case of ML3 verses 458/468) than equating to my current system lack of optimization for particular music.

in the past when you brought this optimization point up, you cited optimizing your system for particular Jordi Savall recordings. even for particular SACD's. i respect that and understand that. and if you believed those efforts did favor that music in your system. who am i to argue? but that does not mean i think my system works like that. or all others either.

regarding the ML3 and darts, and optimization for say......as you mention........string quartets; my opinion is that there are certainly matters of preference, and particular aspects of the music, where the ML3 does more desirable things, goes farther down the road. and then other aspects where the 458 darts directly compared, but even more the 468 darts i got later, do other things better on this music. all relative to my system. no need to dive into the differences. but string quartets happen to be my most played genre of music, and my go-to choice above all others. so it's a big deal to me. given a choice, i'd choose the darts, in my system and room, for string quartets. and that is what i did. but would admit easily that to other ears, or in other systems, another choice might be made. and part of my viewpoint is my room and system development, too.

we could just as easy bring up certain horn speakers, or large panels, or other tube amplifiers, all of which would bring a different strength to the table. might any of those inserted into my system cause certain music to be more optimized? maybe. maybe not. agree they would bring something different and likely very nice. does than mean my system is not optimized? i guess it depends on how you look at it. what does optimization mean? i think i know what it means. and it's not perfect, or very, very best.

i agree that many systems do lean toward one type of music or another, but not ALL systems do. many mature systems over a wide variety of gear and rooms, are very competent at most kinds of music. and the owners would not feel they had blind spots of music they could not fully enjoy.

my previous small room was special sounding, i used 75 watt tubed OTL's and loved it, but it was limited to medium to small scale music as far as what might be optimized. so i moved. took me 11 years in my new larger system to surpass the intimacy of that previous room and system. but it can be done.