KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,646
13,681
2,710
London
In fact, the Wall on Trios w/basshorns got a standing ovation at a show once- never seen that repeated in 15 years.

Trios are excellent at rock and will be at electronics too I guess.

Not saying horns cannot do it. Saying there is no reason to do horns for such music. They bring no added virtues that this music needs. Big cones with woofers can do it too. Imo most audiophiles start with small cones, then upgrade to big cones, some to planars. That is because you and Exilibris have seen how difficult it is to audition horns. You need to go out making an effort. Normal branded cones will find you rather easily and have a good resale. Why bother with horns.

With classical they bring a flow, continuity, and tone and micro dynamics due to high speed sensitivity and SETs simplicity. Also, classical bass and slam is different from rock bass and slam (the latter is more natural to conal excursion, while the former is more open baffled imo)
 

bonzo75

Member Sponsor
Feb 26, 2014
22,646
13,681
2,710
London
IME the problem you're talking about is a function of the electronics and sources and not speakers. If a speaker can play classical it can easily play other genre too and do it all as you put. Of course if one is after the nightclub experience and/or nausea inspiring bass is a very different thing altogether :).

david

Well I do equate electronica with night club bass. Maybe I am wrong as I have never explored that genre because I equate it with night Club bass
 

KeithR

VIP/Donor
May 7, 2010
5,174
2,864
1,898
Encino, CA
Well I do equate electronica with night club bass. Maybe I am wrong as I have never explored that genre because I equate it with night Club bass

Classical composers have been blending electronica now for years. Check it out some time. My latest find is Peter Sandberg.

I'm not talking Sasha & Digweed mixes (although I grew up with them, too).
 

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,797
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
IME the problem you're talking about is a function of the electronics and sources and not speakers. If a speaker can play classical it can easily play other genre too and do it all as you put. Of course if one is after the nightclub experience and/or nausea inspiring bass is a very different thing altogether :).

david

Of course a good speaker system "can do it all". My monitor/subwoofer system also can do everything well, chamber, rock, jazz, electronica -- and now orchestral too, after some essential changes in room acoustics and electronics.

My point was different, a speaker that does everything equally well, and everything on the best possible level. It will be hard to find a speaker/room that can convincingly portray the vast scale of an orchestra relatively close-up (the way many orchestral performances are recorded) and at the same time equally convincingly portray the small-scale intimacy of a string quartet sitting close-up. Even in my own system and only mid-sized room, if the speakers were further apart than they are, the width of a string quartet would sound exaggerated, and often large speakers in a large room are further apart than mine (and I've heard what a "too wide" string quartet sounds like). On the other hand, for orchestra in my system the scale is not wide enough (even though it is not small either). Close up the scale of an orchestra can be huge, immensely huge. Hardly any system will be able to fully represent that huge scale, even though in some systems the representation of orchestral scale will be considerably better than in mine.

As I said, there is a reason why often venues that want to present different kinds of music have at least a large hall and a small hall. The large hall is obviously needed for large-scale music, but small-scale music just does not sound the same in a large hall as it does in the intimacy of a small hall. Hence the small halls for chamber music or piano recitals. Similarly, a single speaker system in a single room will hardly be able to portray all music equally well and on the best possible level.
 

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,030
1,503
550
Eastern WA
Silly expectations.... you can’t really record and produce an orchestra to be completely life like in scale on playback. The closest thing I’ve heard is a chamber “orchestra” (they are not that big) at Mike’s place that sounded like it was somewhere near scale.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,043
995
Utah
Of course a good speaker system "can do it all". My monitor/subwoofer system also can do everything well, chamber, rock, jazz, electronica -- and now orchestral too, after some essential changes in room acoustics and electronics.

My point was different, a speaker that does everything equally well, and everything on the best possible level. It will be hard to find a speaker/room that can convincingly portray the vast scale of an orchestra relatively close-up (the way many orchestral performances are recorded) and at the same time equally convincingly portray the small-scale intimacy of a string quartet sitting close-up. Even in my own system and only mid-sized room, if the speakers were further apart than they are, the width of a string quartet would sound exaggerated, and often large speakers in a large room are further apart than mine (and I've heard what a "too wide" string quartet sounds like). On the other hand, for orchestra in my system the scale is not wide enough (even though it is not small either). Close up the scale of an orchestra can be huge, immensely huge. Hardly any system will be able to fully represent that huge scale, even though in some systems the representation of orchestral scale will be considerably better than in mine.

As I said, there is a reason why often venues that want to present different kinds of music have at least a large hall and a small hall. The large hall is obviously needed for large-scale music, but small-scale music just does not sound the same in a large hall as it does in the intimacy of a small hall. Hence the small halls for chamber music or piano recitals. Similarly, a single speaker system in a single room will hardly be able to portray all music equally well and on the best possible level.

You can get away with large scale orchestral and a good near field setup if you can accept sitting in the bleachers. There's no doubt that even with the best equipment you need a fairly large sized room with decent ceiling height if you want anything close to a real stage for playback, but there's one major obstacle that you'll never overcome, the recording! Not only is it extremely difficult to mic and mix 120+ orchestra properly there's the mandatory compression of loud passages that kills any illusion of realism for me. The best large orchestral reproductions I ever heard were the weekly live classical BBC FM broadcasts back in the day when I used to live in London.

david
 
Last edited:

the sound of Tao

Well-Known Member
Jul 18, 2014
3,641
4,896
940
Trios are excellent at rock and will be at electronics too I guess.

Not saying horns cannot do it. Saying there is no reason to do horns for such music. They bring no added virtues that this music needs. Big cones with woofers can do it too. Imo most audiophiles start with small cones, then upgrade to big cones, some to planars. That is because you and Exilibris have seen how difficult it is to audition horns. You need to go out making an effort. Normal branded cones will find you rather easily and have a good resale. Why bother with horns.

With classical they bring a flow, continuity, and tone and micro dynamics due to high speed sensitivity and SETs simplicity. Also, classical bass and slam is different from rock bass and slam (the latter is more natural to conal excursion, while the former is more open baffled imo)

Definitely, it’s all about the different nature of the sub, bass and midbass.

Even rock and dance music require slightly different bass nature.

Electronic dance music just isn’t about sitting and listening at all. Daft Punk for me is for party mode and dancing, not sitting and listening. By definition any system that only makes you want to just sit and listen to dance music is an epic fail at dance music.

That flow thing that horns/SET can do is part of what makes them (for me) so good at acoustic types of music but then not as ideal at other music types like rock or electro dance as opposed to ambient electronic music. If you’ve got a dsp’d set of woofers or OB subs or a 20 foot long bass horn then it’s these that make the system be able to do rock and electronic music properly rather than the horn above.

Flow is to me all about not-punch. For something like dance music you actually want a bit of extra articulated midbass to make the beats punch through easier (especially in a drug induced state for some apparently) to then follow the dance rhythm... the music is actually supposed to make you want to get up and dance as a physical compulsion not an emotional or intellectual connection.

If I was trying to make some horns also be great (as opposed to sufficient) at dance music (which I might be) I wouldn’t be just thinking about the speakers themselves as DDK mentioned but also looking at the source and amp as components in this as well.

Unfortunately no one has written a dance music for dummies guide (is that an oxymoron?? :) ) so just possibly some basics;

Step 1. Need sufficient DBs to energise the room. Easy for high efficiency horns with pro drivers especially.

Step 2. Appropriate sub for horns (OB sub bass sans dsp for me rather than going box sub or with dsp) to get frequency at least down to the low 20’s. For example Animas do flow absolutely instinctively but clearly need subs to also then do low frequency based music properly. Sure they’ll go loud and they’ll even grunt but they don’t actually shove. Put subs in and they’ll grunt, shove, slam and even party but just in a much more refined, nuanced and tonally textured way. With subs they are just absolutely amazing at room filling ambient electronica.

Step 3. Ensure source and amp completely have the rhythm and timing thing going on. Not hyped midbass though as overkill PRAT makes all other great music emphatically unlistenable. So still with the right amount of flow but also appropriately articulated and midbass punchy when the music calls for it. So essentially having a balance of attack and decay.

Step 4. Dance.

The Maggies are great at every type of music I’ve ever thrown at them, and the 40.2 Harbeths (especially) are even more exceptional at dance music... (even the smaller 30.2s did dance fairly well even if they didn’t energise the room completely). The Pap horns with the crossover mods I’ve done are now actually good at even dance music. They get so much info through and the soundfield and timbre is really immersive. The big Harbeths still do dance even better and effortlessly because they have the bottom up balance working beautifully but the pap horns can now play great at every type of music I throw at them.

So I’d suggest some horn systems can do it all. I’d figure DDK’s, Kodomo’s and Tang’s horns (once he gets the sub project done) would all likely be all great all genre setups. Most not-full-range horn systems especially with less than incisive source and amp components might only be sufficient (and perhaps quite a few not even that) at the electronic bass critical music types.
 
Last edited:

Al M.

VIP/Donor
Sep 10, 2013
8,797
4,550
1,213
Greater Boston
Silly expectations.... you can’t really record and produce an orchestra to be completely life like in scale on playback. The closest thing I’ve heard is a chamber “orchestra” (they are not that big) at
Mike’s place that sounded like it was somewhere near scale.

Of course it's silly expectations, I did not claim otherwise. But it's also silly expectations to assume that any single speaker system in a single room can reproduce both large scale and small scale music just as well as two different speaker systems in two different sized rooms, one specifically optimized as much as possible for grandiose reproduction of large scale, the other specifically optimized for intimate reproduction of small scale music.
 
Last edited:

Folsom

VIP/Donor
Oct 25, 2015
6,030
1,503
550
Eastern WA
Well I don’t really think the enjoyment of music listening comes from scale as imaging goes, for orchestras. Dynamic wise I like it to be appropriate so there is scale in that way.

And I think the best systems do everything extremely well. I don’t expect them to fix poor recordings though.
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
You can get away with large scale orchestral and a good near field setup really if you can accept sitting in the bleachers. There's no doubt that even with the best equipment you need a fairly large sized room with decent ceiling height if you want anything close to a real stage for playback, but there's one major obstacle that you'll never overcome, the recording! Not only is it extremely difficult to mic and mix 120+ orchestra properly there's the mandatory compression of loud passages that kills any illusion of realism for me. The best large orchestral reproductions I ever heard were the weekly live classical BBC FM broadcasts back in the day when I used to live in London.

david
I have ONE big classical recording, given to me by the engineer, that has only 4db of compression. It can sound the most realistic but most systems can’t handle it even remotely.
 

ddk

Well-Known Member
May 18, 2013
6,261
4,043
995
Utah
I have ONE big classical recording, given to me by the engineer, that has only 4db of compression. It can sound the most realistic but most systems can’t handle it even remotely.
Then you have one more than me!
david
 

spiritofmusic

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2013
14,626
5,435
1,278
E. England
So, are you guys w 0.1% less than full range/hugely dynamic systems (you know who you are, 99.9% of WBF membership) resigned to never really being satisfied with, eg Scheherazade at full tilt at home?

Full-on symphonic is just beyond capabilities? Just like there is no home cinema equivalent of "2001" visual majesty and grandeur on Imax?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeff1225

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
I have a story.

Forty years ago, in the waning days of my time spent in high-end audio, I had a customer, Brooks Stevens, Jr., in Concord, Massachusetts. Brooks was 77 when I met him. He made his wealth in textiles, having owned mills in Scotland, Ireland and India. Irrespective of his wealth, Brooks was never less than a supremely considerate gentleman to everyone, regardless of station in life, and he lived on a steady musical diet of classical and Renaissance music. Brooks' house....er mansion....had an immense and fabulous 2-1/2 stories-tall library that doubled as his listening room. Well, in fact he spent most of his retirement waking hours there, and who could blame him? It was a hugely satisfying room to hang in, stuffed with comfortable furniture, floor-to-ceiling lined with books from his huge (for domestic) library. And speakers hinged to swing out from the shelves about halfway up in the height of the 2nd floor when one turned on the hifi. Motors, chains. It was wonderfully Rube Goldbergian, but it worked.

Brooks had "upgraded" his speakers from Altecs to Acoustic Research many years before I met him, and for all that time was frustrated that he lost the dynamics of symphonic music. He also had McIntosh solid state amplification. The system sounded congested in the huge room, and just could not show any jump factor dynamically. But bass support was excellent, and because the room had proportions very close to Symphony Hall in Boston, despite all the damage done to the system's sound by prior advisors indiscriminately shoving Brooks into transistors and acoustic suspension speakers, it still sounded quite good. I had a similar room in another customer's house that proved the rule -- truly anything sounded at least credible, regardless how reprehensible same components sounded anywhere else. Nevertheless, Brooks at 77 wanted better. He wanted the satisfaction he had 20 or 30 years earlier, with then-modern resolution and extension. I had an idea.

Brooks had kept his Altec 604e drivers. He had upgraded through 604s from the 1940s on, and got his last ones with the introduction of the 604e in 1965. I asked to look at them. Brooks had four! And they were in splendid condition. The thing about the Altec 604e is that it was a 101 db/w/m driver, with 16 ohms impedance. Brooks also had the horn-loaded cabinet guts that were replaced in his swing-out cabs by the AR sealed boxes. 16 ohms + 16 ohms in series = 32 ohms. What did I have at the time? Genuine Julius Futterman OTL monoblocks, and an ability to get more. So I could demo to Brooks what he would get. I suggested he return to Altec 604e, that I reinstall the horn cabinet guts in his cabs, which were built for two Altec drivers each side, and power them with Julius Futterman OTL monoblocks, which provided peak power into 32 ohms.

Given Brooks' ties to Scotland and Ireland, I think he gave me extra latitude because I drove a Triumph Spitfire at the time. When I'd show up at his house, he'd ask me to take him for a ride with the top down, and I could tell he wanted to drive it. 20 miles outside of Boston, Massachusetts is infested with fun driving roads so I didn't make him ask. I had him out for a ride heading for the New Hampshire border when I pulled over and offered Brooks the wheel. He was 10 years old again, that day.

I took on more than I was thinking, getting those cabs off the walls, restuffed with horn guts and 15" drivers, then remounted again. I drafted some reluctant help, but when all was done, I brought my Futtermans for the test. I had promised Brooks that if he didn't like the change, I'd reinstall the ARs and just get him a bigger amp. I also brought along an Audio Research SP3a-1 preamp for the listen.

In fact, Scheherazade was Brooks favorite symphonic work, and his reference piece for whether any system changes were worthwhile. Brooks had a Kenwood KD500 DD turntable someone had sold him a couple of years prior, with a Stax tonearm and Decca London cartridge. He had no dynamic problems originating with the source! It took no more than 3 seconds to see the burst of satisfaction spread across Brooks' face. Boom! That vast room was filled with gorgeous, valve sound, illuminated by nuance previously missing and with dynamic shove AWOL from the prior setup. The more modern tube electronics gave the Altecs range and articulation. But the room was the star.

I had already sourced a pair of lightly-used Julius Futterman monoblocks and arranged for Brooks an Audio Research SP6B preamp. I left the rest of the system, including his ReVox A77 r2r intact. After that, I'd go to Brooks' house for a maintenance check every quarter, unless he asked for an intermediate visit (which he did, just to hang out and play records, then take a ride in my Spit). Sadly, Brooks died in 1981. I called to schedule a visit and the person who answered the phone delivered the news. Brooks passed the day before I called him. Despite only knowing Brooks for two years, I still miss him.

The day that revised system was turned on, I began my hunt for Zu. I just didn't know it then. I had by that time been through a journey that started with KLH 32, Dynaco A50, Advents, Dahlquist DQ10, double Rogers LS3/5a, Quad ESL, even a stint with KLH 9s I was asked to keep in use. I liked my speakers with minimal crossovers, high in unity, steeped in time-coherence, and tonally authentic. And working in the business, I had a chance to hear virtually everything at the time, effortlessly. These were the latter days when there was a hifi store in every town in America with more than 15,000 people, so no matter where you were, it wasn't a long drive to hear something credible.

Now, I did in fact stop listening to Scheherazade at full tilt on home hifi, for many, many years. I grew up with live classical music hearing the Philadelphia Orchestra when Eugene Ormandy was still conducting. I frequented later the Pittsburgh Symphony and then for a ten year span, the Boston Symphony Orchestra when Ozawa was musical director. If I wanted to listen to full orchestra, I simply went to hear it live, because, nothing in hifi really reproduced that, though I got close with Brooks Stevens' system. When I wanted to listen to full orchestra at home, it was usually through Stax electrostatic headphones driven by tube amplification. Speakers failed at orchestras.

Until 2005 when I bought my first pair of Zu Definitions, v1.5. They were a revelation. A speaker with the efficiency, explosiveness, scale and tonal realism to put convincing orchestral music in my house. And without having to resort to a comparatively clumsy high power amplifier. Same with big movie soundtracks, especially after BluRay hit. People come to my house to listen, and if they are not audiophiles or hi-fi-literate, they just let the music wash over them amazed. The hi-fi types compliment the sound but express mystification over how I get it. But this; but that. My turntables are 40 years old. My tonearms range from 50 years old to 2016. My phono cartridges were originally designed in 1959 and 1962. My R2R DACs use 20+ years old chips. By speakers have no crossovers. My tube amps are unknown.

The issue is, too many audiophile systems are built from the front-end forward, on that old propagandistic Linn principle that if you don't get the source right, nothing else matters. That's kind of true when you're jamming the pipe of sound through a crossover at the endpoint. Zu, and a few others change that. Once I built from the speakers-back, rather than source-downstream, I got convincing orchestral sound and everything else, and Zu was the enabler.

Phil
 
Last edited:

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
I have a story.

Forty years ago, in the waning days of my time spent in high-end audio, I had a customer, Brooks Stevens, Jr., in Concord, Massachusetts. Brooks was 77 when I met him. He made his wealth in textiles, having owned mills in Scotland, Ireland and India. Irrespective of his wealth, Brooks was never less than a supremely considerate gentleman to everyone, regardless of station in life, and he lived on a steady musical diet of classical and Renaissance music. Brooks' house....er mansion....had an immense and fabulous 2-1/2 stories-tall library that doubled as his listening room. Well, in fact he spent most of his retirement waking hours there, and who could blame him? It was a hugely satisfying room to hang in, stuffed with comfortable furniture, floor-to-ceiling lined with books from his huge (for domestic) library. And speakers hinged to swing out from the shelves about halfway up in the height of the 2nd floor when one turned on the hifi. Motors, chains. It was wonderfully Rube Goldbergian, but it worked.

Brooks had "upgraded" his speakers from Altecs to Acoustic Research many years before I met him, and for all that time was frustrated that he lost the dynamics of symphonic music. He also has McIntosh solid state amplification. The system sounded congested in the huge room, and just could not show any jump factor dynamically. But bass support was excellent, and because the room had proportions very close to Symphony Hall in Boston, despite all the damage done to the system's sound by prior advisors indiscriminately shoving Brooks into transistors and acoustic suspension speakers, it still sounded quite good. I had a similar room in another customer's house that proved the rule -- truly anything sounded at least credible, regardless how reprehensible same components sounded anywhere else. Nevertheless, Brooks at 77 wanted better. He wanted the satisfaction he had 20 or 30 years earlier, with then-modern resolution and extension. I had an idea.

Brooks had kept his Altec 604e drivers. He had upgraded through 604s from the 1940s on, and got his last ones with the introduction of the 604e in 1965. I asked to look at them. Brooks had four! And they were in splendid condition. The thing about the Altec 604e is that it was a 101 db/w/m driver, with 16 ohms impedance. Brooks also had the horn-loaded cabinet guts that were replaced in his swing-out cabs by the AR sealed boxes. 16 ohms + 16 ohms in series = 32 ohms. What did I have at the time? Genuine Julius Futterman OTL monoblocks, and an ability to get more. So I could demo to Brooks what he would get. I suggested he return to Altec 604e, that I reinstall the horn cabinet guts in his cabs, which were built for two Altec drivers each side, and power them with Julius Futterman OTL monoblocks, which provided peak power into 32 ohms.

Given Brooks' ties to Scotland and Ireland, I think he gave me extra latitude because I drove a Triumph Spitfire at the time. When I'd show up at his house, he'd ask me to take him for a ride with the top down, and I could tell he wanted to drive it. 20 miles outside of Boston, Massachusetts is infested with fun driving roads so I didn't make him ask. I had him out for a ride heading for the New Hampshire border when I pulled over and offered Brooks the wheel. He was 10 years old again, that day.

I took on more than I was thinking, getting those cabs off the walls, restuffed with horn guts and 15" drivers, then remounted again. I drafted some reluctant help, but when all was done, I brought my Futtermans for the test. I had promised Brooks that if he didn't like the change, I'd reinstall the ARs and just get him a bigger amp. I also brought along an Audio Research SP3a-1 preamp for the listen.

In fact, Scheherazade was Brooks favorite symphonic work, and his reference piece for whether any system changes were worthwhile. Brooks had a Kenwood KD500 DD turntable someone had sold him a couple of years prior, with a Stax tonearm and Decca London cartridge. He had no dynamic problems originating with the source! It took no more than 3 seconds to see the burst of satisfaction spread across Brooks' face. Boom! That vast room was filled with gorgeous, valve sound, illuminated by nuance previously missing and with dynamic shove AWOL from the prior setup. The more modern tube electronics gave the Altecs range and articulation. But the room was the star.

I had already sourced a pair of lightly-used Julius Futterman monoblocks and arranged for Brooks an Audio Research SP6B preamp. I left the rest of the system, including his ReVox A77 r2r intact. After that, I'd go to Brooks' house for a maintenance check every quarter, unless he asked for an intermediate visit (which he did, just to hang out and play records, then take a ride in my Spit). Sadly, Brooks died in 1981. I called to schedule a visit and the person who answered the phone delivered the news. Brooks passed the day before I called him. Despite only knowing Brooks for two years, I still miss him.

The day that revised system was turned on, I began my hunt for Zu. I just didn't know it then. I had by that time been through a journey that started with KLH 32, Dynaco A50, Advents, Dahlquist DQ10, double Rogers LS3/5a, Quad ESL, even a stint with KLH 9s I was asked to keep in use. I liked my speakers with minimal crossovers, high in unity, steeped in time-coherence, and tonally authentic. And working in the business, I had a chance to hear virtually everything at the time, effortlessly. These were the latter days when there was a hifi store in every town in America with more than 15,000 people, so no matter where you were, it wasn't a long drive to hear something credible.

Now, I did in fact stop listening to Scheherazade at full tilt on home hifi, for many, many years. I grew up with live classical music hearing the Philadelphia Orchestra when Eugene Ormandy was still conducting. I frequented later the Pittsburgh Symphony and then for a ten year span, the Boston Symphony Orchestra when Ozawa was musical director. If I wanted to listen to full orchestra, I simply went to hear it live, because, nothing in hifi really reproduced that, though I got close with Brooks Stevens' system. When I wanted to listen to full orchestra at home, it was usually through Stax electrostatic headphones driven by tube amplification. Speakers failed at orchestras.

Until 2005 when I bought my first pair of Zu Definitions, v1.5. They were a revelation. A speaker with the efficiency, explosiveness, scale and tonal realism to put convincing orchestral music in my house. And without having to resort to a comparatively clumsy high power amplifier. Same with big movie soundtracks, especially after BluRay hit. People come to my house to listen, and if they are not audiophiles or hi-fi-literate, they just let the music wash over them amazed. The hi-fi types compliment the sound but express mystification over how I get it. But this; but that. My turntables are 40 years old. My tonearms range from 50 years old to 2016. My phono cartridges were originally designed in 1959 and 1962. My R2R DACs use 20+ years old chips. By speakers have no crossovers. My tube amps are unknown.

The issue is, too many audiophile systems are built from the front-end forward, on that old propagandistic Linn principle that if you don't get the source right, nothing else matters. That's kind of true when you're jamming the pipe of sound through a crossover at the endpoint. Zu, and a few others change that. Once I built from the speakers-back, rather than source-downstream, I got convincing orchestral sound and everything else, and Zu was the enabler.

Phil
I think you are under selling the electronics in your final assessment. I can absolutely ruin the sound of your Zus with poor choice of amps. Conversely, I can make mediocre speakers sound quite acceptable and interesting with good electronics behind...many speakers are not as limiting as people think...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Folsom

Rob181

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2014
207
116
275
I think you are under selling the electronics in your final assessment. I can absolutely ruin the sound of your Zus with poor choice of amps. Conversely, I can make mediocre speakers sound quite acceptable and interesting with good electronics behind...many speakers are not as limiting as people think...

I don't believe that to be the case - Phil has stated what his gear is - also was kind enough to share his review of carefully selected - "cheap" quality valve amps based on great designs of lore. Further he is not talking about "acceptable sound" - he is talking about "the best sound" for him.
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
>>I think you are under selling the electronics in your final assessment. I can absolutely ruin the sound of your Zus with poor choice of amps. Conversely, I can make mediocre speakers sound quite acceptable and interesting with good electronics behind...many speakers are not as limiting as people think...<<

What I didn't include is that we listened with Brooks' prior electronics as well. It was still a better sound, but the change in electronics was better still. It was easy enough to wire the drivers in parallel for the prior amplifications, and in series for the Futtermans to make the comparison more fair.

There are many examples of good speakers compromised by a poor choice of amplification; very few of mediocre speakers made acceptable by an adroit choice of amplification. As I've written about Zu from my first notes about them 15 years ago, the amp/speaker interface and combination is the fulcrum of fidelity for a Zu-based system, more so than with most speakers. But you missed the point of the narrative, which isn't surprising.

Phil
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
I don't believe that to be the case - Phil has stated what his gear is - also was kind enough to share his review of carefully selected - "cheap" quality valve amps based on great designs of lore. Further he is not talking about "acceptable sound" - he is talking about "the best sound" for him.
You don’t believe what, exactly, to be the case? That the sound can’t be ruined by poor electronics? That what people think are so-so speakers can’t be elevated with great electronics? Both? Neither?
 

morricab

Well-Known Member
Apr 25, 2014
9,531
5,068
1,228
Switzerland
>>I think you are under selling the electronics in your final assessment. I can absolutely ruin the sound of your Zus with poor choice of amps. Conversely, I can make mediocre speakers sound quite acceptable and interesting with good electronics behind...many speakers are not as limiting as people think...<<

What I didn't include is that we listened with Brooks' prior electronics as well. It was still a better sound, but the change in electronics was better still. It was easy enough to wire the drivers in parallel for the prior amplifications, and in series for the Futtermans to make the comparison more fair.

There are many examples of good speakers compromised by a poor choice of amplification; very few of mediocre speakers made acceptable by an adroit choice of amplification. As I've written about Zu from my first notes about them 15 years ago, the amp/speaker interface and combination is the fulcrum of fidelity for a Zu-based system, more so than with most speakers. But you missed the point of the narrative, which isn't surprising.

Phil
I got the point just fine Phil...no need for the backhanded swipe at the end of an otherwise reasonable post.

I thought you were talking about absolute fidelity here? Sure it might have still sounded better with the Altecs regardless of the amps than the Other speakers but would you have wanted to live with that?? I think not because I am sure the OTLs were WAY better sounding...waste of an Altec to put unacceptable electronics on them.

Your second point I disagree with...I have made several so-so (seemingly) speakers sound pretty darn pleasing with the right electronics. Sure those same electronics on world class speakers was another level but the flip side is frequently unlistenable. That was my point.

You didn’t try the OTLs by chance on the acoustic suspension speakers did you? Maybe it wouldn’t give that much power but might have elevated the sound significantly. I put my OTLs on a pair of Acoustats, which defies a lot of audio “rules” and jaws were a droppin’. Only the heat ruled out a long term affair. Ok, they were great speakers too but that made the electronics even More important not less.
 

213Cobra

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2018
328
344
148
69
Los Angeles, CA
Sure, before going down the Altec restoration path, I put my OTLs on the ARs. Better tonal representation but still dynamically unconvincing on symphonic music. This was in the days of acoustic suspension speakers having efficiency ratings in the 70s. Depending on the baseline speaker, one could gain 20-30 dbs of effective amplifier power by moving to the 101db Altecs. -Phil
 

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