Introducing My System

[hopkins]

Entirely not my impression. Really surprised you would hear that from the recording (meaning it wouldn't even occur to me), but again, that's why I post 'em.

But you admit hearing something different in some other videos…

P.S. maybe try some different tracks.

 

[bonzo75]

Entirely not my impression. Really surprised you would hear that from the recording (meaning it wouldn't even occur to me), but again, that's why I post 'em.

Not dull at all, good flow and energy.

 

[lars66]

I am truly delighted. The sense of presence of the musicians and the beauty of their presentation of this track are incredible. It's a great video posted on the YT channel, it's so alive.

 

[hopkins]

Funny how we perceive things so differently! I may also have trouble getting past the music which I find terribly overrated… Some contemporary jazz seems pointless - this is a typical example - but it’s obviously a matter of taste. The system incorporates AI - maybe soon this type of music will simply be generated by AI as well

 

[Al M.]

To be honest, I find the sound a little "dull", and based on this, I could see why Thundersnow would consider horns

I have to agree. Dull and flat, no energy and no presence. What others hear in the video is beyond me.

But then, I don't judge systems from videos that don't sound good.

Videos are like sound at an audio show: If it's good or even great, that means something. If the sound at the show is bad or mediocre -- whatever, could have many reasons. In that case, meaningless data point, just like a mediocre sounding video.

So it might very well be that Thundersnow's system sounds great in person, I just don't hear it from this video.

 

[PeterA]

I think this is good, but to me, it sounds slightly restricted. There’s great flow and rhythm and sense of musicians playing together. I do find the bass a little bit thunky one note and heavy-handed. When I go to live jazz performances, the bass is usually not as prominent and more nuanced. This is one of the better Clarisys videos I’ve seen.

 

[Al M.]

I think this is good, but to me, it sounds slightly restricted.

Restricted is a good term.

 

[bonzo75]

I have to agree. Dull and flat, no energy and no presence. What others hear in the video is beyond me.

But then, I don't judge systems from videos that don't sound good.

Videos are like sound at an audio show: If it's good or even great, that means something. If the sound at the show is bad or mediocre -- whatever, could have many reasons. In that case, meaningless data point, just like a mediocre sounding video.

So it might very well be that Thundersnow's system sounds great in person, I just don't hear it from this video.

I now heard it on my naim soundbox. On that it sounds different from what it sounds on mobile. So with only one video as datapoint, this is where I would go to someone who heard it in room, or wait for more videos to understand.

 

[PeterA]

I now heard it on my naim soundbox. On that it sounds different from what it sounds on mobile. So with only one video as datapoint, this is where I would go to someone who heard it in room, or wait for more videos to understand.

I never listen to these videos on a mobile phone.

 

[bonzo75]

I never listen to these videos on a mobile phone.

I do both. Many times they are consistent, sometimes they vary. When I post mine if they don't work on mobile I put a comment to listen on soundbar.

 

[Audiohertz2]

I have to agree. Dull and flat, no energy and no presence. What others hear in the video is beyond me.

But then, I don't judge systems from videos that don't sound good.

Videos are like sound at an audio show: If it's good or even great, that means something. If the sound at the show is bad or mediocre -- whatever, could have many reasons. In that case, meaningless data point, just like a mediocre sounding video.

So it might very well be that Thundersnow's system sounds great in person, I just don't hear it from this video.

With phone videos you gotta listen on multiple playback speakers (phone / headphones etc) to see if it’s consistent to what you are hearing ..!

 

[Audiohertz2]

Horns are quite better for large and small scale classical, jazz, vocals, and dual FLH also for rock (nothing comes remotely close in fact difference is biggest here). Just go check the video thread, there is one for each of those categories

I too was a fan of Apogees, analysis audio and electrostats for their midrange beauty, and apogee for the midbass. When Ron was focused on Martin Logan Neolith a decade ago i pushed him to Apogee’s and Analysis auditions because of ribbon vocals and bottom up density compared to electrostats. But i learned and moved on to horns as they are a few levels above

You are listening to bad speakers/setups if you think only horns can do, comparing bespoke Horns with years of adjustments to commercial speakers thrown in a room is not a good comparison ..!

 

[bonzo75]

You are listening to bad speakers/setups if you think only horns can do

The ones I have heard are documented, you can think of them what you like.

 

[Al M.]

With phone videos you gotta listen on multiple playback speakers (phone / headphones etc) to see if it’s consistent to what you are hearing ..!

In this case I listened on phone speakers, then headphones. Even on the phone speakers I could sense that Hopkins was right with his comment on "dull" sounding, and it was confirmed over headphones.

Regardless, I never take phone speakers as the last word (obviously). I trust headphones more. But then, system videos in general are never the last word anyway, listening in person is the real deal.

 

[rob]

Which tannoy

Old ones.
Westminster Royal,HE
The best version IMO, designed by technical director Alex Garner. Not too warm, have a clean sound, fast and dynamic, almost a forward sound signature on some recordings that I like. Remind me of an ESL with lifelike dynamics and bass. They can play clean, loud and pressurise the room like few speakers I have heard. Without sounding harsh like many horns at high SPL.

The earlier model sounds wooly, with noticeable box colourations, slightly thick and lacking clarity in comparison.
The later SE was Paul Mills effort at making a more modern sound ,still good but sounds less lively ,a bit dull and polite.
The new GR uses a different driver surround with a warmer tonal balance , a bit boring and slow for my taste.

Dr Gizmo’s writing on the original is quite interesting. Just a hint of poetic license going on here but I feel he does well explaining the speaker.,Bear in mind this was the original which had more noticeable cabinet colourations.

TANNOYMANIA

I should leave Thundersnows page …

 

[cjfrbw]

Has poor Thundersnow been keel hauled into video audiophile hell yet? That's the standard hazard of getting claque'd to death.

 

[Al M.]

Has poor Thundersnow been keel hauled into video audiophile hell yet? That's the standard hazard of getting claque'd to death.

I would love to hear Thundersnow's system in person. I would assume it sounds much better than that latest video. The several videos on thread page 25 do sound way better than that video, by the way, even though I don't believe they are truly representative of the system either.

 

[morricab]

Horns for classical, planars for vocals, ensembles, jazz, pop, techno. Hard, loud rock also horns, I guess, but might be hearing hazards.

If I only listened to classical, I would probably go horn.

Sorry, horns are better for Jazz for the most part...speaking from a lot of experience from both speaker camps...

 

[Thundersnow]

You know what I said about reasonable and likeminded … we can scratch that

Anyway, you guys are all welcome to like or dislike. Have no problems with that.

 

[morricab]

You know what I said about reasonable and likeminded … we can scratch that

Anyway, you guys are all welcome to like or dislike. Have no problems with that.

I am with you Thunder...