A Gold Standard for Listening Evaluations

[Ron Resnick]

When I began my career in audio, I operated under the guiding principle that components working together in a system should come as close as possible to revealing accurately all the information that is embedded on the source material. I have over time evolved this idea to a much more accessible principle: Create a system that gets out of the way of the music so that we can suspend our belief that we are only listening to a hi fi and feel more connected to actual music listening experiences.

I cannot resist mapping Karen's beginning guiding principle and her later principle to my objectives of high-end audio framework.

In 2016 a group of us developed four alternative, but not mutually exclusive, objectives of high-end audio.

1) recreate the sound of an original musical event,

2) reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played,

3) create a sound subjectively pleasing to the audiophile, and

4) create a sound that seems live.

Karen's beginning principle, "come as close as possible to revealing accurately all the information that is embedded on the source material,' seems to me to be substantially the same as Objective 2) "reproduce exactly what is on the tape, vinyl or digital source being played."

Karen's later principle, "create a system that gets out of the way of the music so that we can suspend our belief that we are only listening to a hi fi and feel more connected to actual music listening experiences," seems to me to be substantially the same as Objective 4) "create a sound that seems live."

 

[PeterA]

I agree completely with so many of Karen's individual statements that I am not sure which ones to highlight. There is so much wisdom embedded in her essay that I truly believe that this essay is, in and of itself, an introductory education to our hobby.

I would like to highlight two paragraphs in Karen's essay which I think are monumentally important and which have great explanatory power for much of the behavior of many audiophiles:





These views, I believe, explain my personal preference for components whose sonic "center of gravity" is the lower midrange/upper bass portion of the frequency spectrum.

Ron, are you saying that you hear a tonal balance centered at the lower mid range and upper bass when you listen to live music?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, are you saying that you hear a tonal balance centered at the lower mid range and upper bass when you listen to live music?

That is what I believe I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall. I certainly do not hear in real life a frequency spectrum tipped up to the high frequencies. I do not hear in real life the kind of emphasized details I hear often from stereo systems.

In any event I am certain that, for me, a tonal balance centered at the lower midrange and upper bass frequencies creates from a stereo a reproduced sound which is closer to what I hear from live, unamplified music.

 

[PeterA]

That is what I believe I hear at Walt Disney Concert Hall. I certainly do not hear in real life a frequency spectrum tipped up to the high frequencies. I do not hear in real life the kind of emphasized details I hear often from stereo systems.

In any event I am certain that, for me, a tonal balance centered at the lower midrange and upper bass frequencies creates from a stereo a reproduced sound which is closer to what I hear from live, unamplified music.

Thank you Ron for that explanation. I don’t hear enhanced high frequencies in real life either as they do in many systems.

I asked you the question because I don’t see any mention of that lower mid range upper bass centered sound in Karen’s wonderful opening post.

I see that as an indication of how you describe what you hear and your personal preferences which is consistent with your System listening impressions and gear reviews.

 

[Ron Resnick]

, , ,

I asked you the question because I don’t see any mention of that lower mid range upper bass centered sound in Karen’s wonderful opening post.

. . .

Perhaps I misinterpreted this paragraph from Karen's essay, but I based my post on what I deduced from this paragraph:

Achieving and maintaining a believable level of tonal density in a hi fi system should be the foundation of building any system regardless of its price tag or the type of music that one prefers. . . .

Most of us tend to choose components or room set ups that reduce middle frequencies and lower harmonics below the level that they are present on the source material because large and enveloping middle frequencies and lower harmonics seem to diminish some of the detail that we think we need to hear. The result is a rather antiseptic listening experience where middle frequencies and lower harmonics are “purified” of their essential character. Reducing the power of midrange to hear more details is hi fi, not music, and I don’t mean “hi fi” in any pejorative sense if that is what you really want.

 

[microstrip]

These views, I believe, explain my personal preference for components whose sonic "center of gravity" is the lower midrange/upper bass portion of the frequency spectrum.

Ron,

IMHO it is not the best way of getting the proper level of tonal density - IMHO the whole spectrum should be uniformly balanced. IMHO proper tonal balance is achieved keeping a an adequate level of information along all the spectra. In order to have the correct tonal density we also have to avoid any vestige of tonal brightness.

BTW, IMHO our VTL's do not have such center of gravity in the lower midrange/upper bass - it is one reason I appreciate them a lot.

 

[PeterA]

Perhaps I misinterpreted this paragraph from Karen's essay, but I based my post on what I deduced from this paragraph:

Achieving and maintaining a believable level of tonal density in a hi fi system should be the foundation of building any system regardless of its price tag or the type of music that one prefers. . . .

Most of us tend to choose components or room set ups that reduce middle frequencies and lower harmonics below the level that they are present on the source material because large and enveloping middle frequencies and lower harmonics seem to diminish some of the detail that we think we need to hear. The result is a rather antiseptic listening experience where middle frequencies and lower harmonics are “purified” of their essential character. Reducing the power of midrange to hear more details is hi fi, not music, and I don’t mean “hi fi” in any pejorative sense if that is what you really want.

Yes, I do not see any reference to lower midrange/upper bass frequency balance in those remarks. Furthermore, I do not think that "tonal density" is represented by that frequency range. To me, tonal density covers the entire frequency spectrum. I find thin and whitish sounding reproduced cymbals for instance lacking the tonal density I hear from a live drum set. Mid bass and treble frequencies heard from particular instruments and voices should all exhibit tonal density.

I agree with Karen that one can often sacrifice the weight and richness of the sound of real instruments by chasing "detail" and supposed resolution. This is where the sound of instruments reproduced can become "hifi" rather than a natural sounding presentation. I finally understood ddk's phrase "natural resolution" when I heard it in Utah with the full frequency spectrum of tone and information coming through his systems. There was no sacrifice going on for the sake of more detail. The systems had it all, certainly relative to other systems I had heard at the time, even if falling somewhat short of the real thing. The power of Karen's OP, to me, is the emphasis on the Gold Standard or reference of live instruments. We all hear differently, and take with us what we do from live concerts, so there are differences in interpretation, but at least there is a standard, a reference. We are well served by regular exposure to this when assessing system quality.

 

[microstrip]

IMHO one the most interesting comments of Karen is on the effects of refreshing our listening memory with live music in order to fully appreciate our systems. In fact, every time I ho to a concert my system starts sounding better - it becomes easier to handle the small details that create the illusion and the enjoyment, particularly the soundstage and scale.

I fully understand her sentence " Live music experiences are the most important tool I have found to prevent a hi fi system from devolving into a tonal caricature of live music, and sadly, many of us, including me, have not attended live music performances in a long time. Recently, I realized that the sound of my system had slowly become rather bloodless."

Should we consider that going to a concert is more effective than changing speakers?

I am less enthusiastic her comment on the absolute need of frequently listening to live music to successfully assemble and tune an high-end system - most of my audiophile friends who have very good sounding systems and are extremely pleased with the hobby are not concert goers. In fact as once masterly said by Keith Yates " Most audiophiles, I was to learn, don’t “do” concerts. It’s part of the religion, but not part of the life."

 

[tima]

Ron: I would like to highlight two paragraphs in Karen's essay which I think are monumentally important and which have great explanatory power for much of the behavior of many audiophiles:

Karen: Although ears can’t be fooled over the long term, we all have a tendency over time to lose sight of the real reference unless we constantly massage ourselves with live music. It’s just too easy to become wrapped up in a never-ending process of trying to get the system more in balance without any real point of reference.

Karen: Achieving and maintaining a believable level of tonal density in a hi fi system should be the foundation of building any system regardless of its price tag or the type of music that one prefers. Unfortunately, it is the first quality to fall by the wayside in a quest to hear more information. Ron: These views, I believe, explain my personal preference for components whose sonic "center of gravity" is the lower midrange/upper bass portion of the frequency spectrum.

It's too bad the forum software does not include quotes within a reply - it could. but be that as it may ...

It's not clear, Ron, what you mean by a "sonic 'center of gravity'", but let's look at what is in the lower midrange/upper bass portion of the frequency spectrum.

An 88 key piano covers the frequency spectrum across which orchestral instruments are scored. The 44th key is the E (~329 Hz) above middle C. So there's a middle. Almost all instruments will touch that frequency, though a small few do not; for example timpani, bass, bass saxophone, piccolo and most sets of bells don't cover that E.

Different people name portions of the frequency spectrum and the frequency ranges they assign to those names will vary. Consider Gordon Holt - he says the Upper-Bass covers 80-160Hz and the Lower Midrange runs 160-320 Hz. His top doesn't quite make it to the middle E. Robert Harley says the Upper Bass goes from 100-250Hz and the Lower Midrange runs from 250Hz to 500Hz. Harely's top goes an octave above middle-C. If we take Holt's low and Harely's high, the middle (the center of gravity?) of that is around 196Hz - the G below middle-C.)

I understand you are talking about components but it's worth correlating with what we hear. A typical soprano can get an octave above Harley's Lower Midrange and a violin another octave above that. A string bass will play an octave below Holt's Upper-Bass. A lot of information is contained in the UB to LM frequency spectrum, but a goodly amount falls outside of it.

While I don't quite agree with Karen's characterization, I think she was getting at the notion that modern audiophiles tends to emphasize hearing detail as a hallmark of component/system goodness and that such a component can do that to the disadvantage of midrange tonal balance. I believe there is some truth in that slight retelling of her essay.

There is audiophilery as entertainment and audiophilery as reproduction. Some people put more emphasis on one or the other. Synthesists and Naturalists. (The following is the writing on the side of the box to comply with political correctness: There is no 'right' or 'correct'. As @marty so eloquently restated a central tenet of the Mick Jagger School of Art Appreciation ("I'm no schoolboy but I know what I like" - lyrics) when he said: There are only 2 kinds- wine you enjoy and wine you do not. All that other stuff (it tastes like plums, cassis, tobacco, burnt toast etc) is mostly crap.")

When I began my career in audio, I operated under the guiding principle that components working together in a system should come as close as possible to revealing accurately all the information that is embedded on the source material. I have over time evolved this idea to a much more accessible principle: Create a system that gets out of the way of the music so that we can suspend our belief that we are only listening to a hi fi and feel more connected to actual music listening experiences.

Partly, the recognition that accurately revealing all information (detail?) is less than primary.

Achieving and maintaining a believable level of tonal density in a hi fi system should be the foundation of building any system regardless of its price tag or the type of music that one prefers. Unfortunately, it is the first quality to fall by the wayside in a quest to hear more information

That's not speed, or slam or detail. Here's a caeser-like question: In differentiating themselves from other components, are manufacturers really differentiating themselves from the sound of live music? or ... why have audiophile's come to place such value on characteristics outside those core to music: tonality, dynamics and timing?

This is not about the Upper-Bass/Lower-Midrange. A center of gravity is the average location of the weight of an object - where weight is evenly distributed. For a preference of 'balance', rather than giving a frequency, and since many say we all hear differently, I'll simply point - I'll point at the orchestra on stage.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Dear Tim,

Your post was carefully analyzed and beautifully written, as always. Thank you for correlating frequencies with instruments and vocal range. Thank you also for appreciating that I was writing about more of a subjective sense of frequency range than technically accurate frequency correlations.

The definition of "center of gravity" as "the average location of the weight of an object - where weight is evenly distributed" works for me in terms of what I was trying to convey! The best component example I can give you is the Grado Epoch3. The second best component example I can give you is the original Aesthetix Io.

 

[Karen Sumner]

It's too bad the forum software does not include quotes within a reply - it could. but be that as it may ...

It's not clear, Ron, what you mean by a "sonic 'center of gravity'", but let's look at what is in the lower midrange/upper bass portion of the frequency spectrum.

An 88 key piano covers the frequency spectrum across which orchestral instruments are scored. The 44th key is the E (~329 Hz) above middle C. So there's a middle. Almost all instruments will touch that frequency, though a small few do not; for example timpani, bass, bass saxophone, piccolo and most sets of bells don't cover that E.

Different people name portions of the frequency spectrum and the frequency ranges they assign to those names will vary. Consider Gordon Holt - he says the Upper-Bass covers 80-160Hz and the Lower Midrange runs 160-320 Hz. His top doesn't quite make it to the middle E. Robert Harley says the Upper Bass goes from 100-250Hz and the Lower Midrange runs from 250Hz to 500Hz. Harely's top goes an octave above middle-C. If we take Holt's low and Harely's high, the middle (the center of gravity?) of that is around 196Hz - the G below middle-C.)

I understand you are talking about components but it's worth correlating with what we hear. A typical soprano can get an octave above Harley's Lower Midrange and a violin another octave above that. A string bass will play an octave below Holt's Upper-Bass. A lot of information is contained in the UB to LM frequency spectrum, but a goodly amount falls outside of it.

While I don't quite agree with Karen's characterization, I think she was getting at the notion that modern audiophiles tends to emphasize hearing detail as a hallmark of component/system goodness and that such a component can do that to the disadvantage of midrange tonal balance. I believe there is some truth in that slight retelling of her essay.

There is audiophilery as entertainment and audiophilery as reproduction. Some people put more emphasis on one or the other. Synthesists and Naturalists. (The following is the writing on the side of the box to comply with political correctness: There is no 'right' or 'correct'. As @marty so eloquently restated a central tenet of the Mick Jagger School of Art Appreciation ("I'm no schoolboy but I know what I like" - lyrics) when he said: There are only 2 kinds- wine you enjoy and wine you do not. All that other stuff (it tastes like plums, cassis, tobacco, burnt toast etc) is mostly crap.")


Partly, the recognition that accurately revealing all information (detail?) is less than primary.



That's not speed, or slam or detail. Here's a caeser-like question: In differentiating themselves from other components, are manufacturers really differentiating themselves from the sound of live music? or ... why have audiophile's come to place such value on characteristics outside those core to music: tonality, dynamics and timing?

This is not about the Upper-Bass/Lower-Midrange. A center of gravity is the average location of the weight of an object - where weight is evenly distributed. For a preference of 'balance', rather than giving a frequency, and since many say we all hear differently, I'll simply point - I'll point at the orchestra on stage.

Thank you Tim for putting some of these ideas into a more tangible context. To Tim's point, please see the attached chart that shows the fundamental frequencies of the instruments in an orchestra using the piano as a point of reference. Where are the majority of fundamentals?

 

[Tango]

An 88 key piano covers the frequency spectrum across which orchestral instruments are scored. The 44th key is the E (~329 Hz) above middle C. So there's a middle. Almost all instruments will touch that frequency, though a small few do not; for example timpani, bass, bass saxophone, piccolo and most sets of bells don't cover that E.

Different people name portions of the frequency spectrum and the frequency ranges they assign to those names will vary. Consider Gordon Holt - he says the Upper-Bass covers 80-160Hz and the Lower Midrange runs 160-320 Hz. His top doesn't quite make it to the middle E. Robert Harley says the Upper Bass goes from 100-250Hz and the Lower Midrange runs from 250Hz to 500Hz. Harely's top goes an octave above middle-C. If we take Holt's low and Harely's high, the middle (the center of gravity?) of that is around 196Hz - the G below middle-C.)

I understand you are talking about components but it's worth correlating with what we hear. A typical soprano can get an octave above Harley's Lower Midrange and a violin another octave above that. A string bass will play an octave below Holt's Upper-Bass. A lot of information is contained in the UB to LM frequency spectrum, but a goodly amount falls outside of it.

This is very educational for me. I really appreciate your comment.

 

[Edward Pong]

I was unaware Karen posted this 2nd Thread on the importance of unamplified acoustic instruments as a reference to sound reproduction. I couldn't agree more with this statement!

I'm so happy to read that my tape "Tatsuki Narita" has helped her adjust her system to bring back the blood/emotion in its sound!

If I look back 14 yrs ago, the sole reason I started UltraAnalogue Recordings, was to try to capture/record the soul moving sounds of these Cremonese instruments, played by some of the best soloists of this generation. We set out to build the purest signal path possible utilizing the circuits & tubes we felt would gave the most natural sound. Our reference was always my house concerts. Every component, wire, tube was listened to, against this live sound...

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to list a link to another Forum from this Forum... but this is by an audiophile, from Southern California, who came to one of my live concerts/recording sessions. He listened to some master tapes played on my custom system, the day before the concert & then the live concert the next day...

Forums - My Trip to UltraAnalgoue Recordings: Part 1

www.decware.com

Forums - My Trip to UltraAnalgoue Recordings: Part 2

www.decware.com

Of course, every audio system is different but the reference is "live unamplified acoustic instruments"

Ed

 

[Edward Pong]

Where are the majority of fundamentals?

I completely agree here, and it's especially evident listening to typical recordings of violins vs a live violin. A live (great Cremonese instrument) violin has a much deeper voice than one typically hears on a recording.

A large part is dependent on the position of the microphones. A closer placement will have more direct sound and accent the upper frequencies, whereas any placement beyond 8-10' will capture a more reflected sound. It will sound more "relaxed" and have much less extreme high frequency detail & more "warmth" depending on the room acoustics. There really is no absolute!

The same exists when one listens to a live violin.... a sound perspective from 9-10' away is often the best balance of direct vs reflected sound. Up close, a violin's sound can hurt you!

Because, sound pressure vs distance is an inverse square relationship, small changes in microphone distances can result in large differences in microphone response. This is why, because often in concerts, since we're sitting in row M-Z, the sound is very different from most recordings, which often may have the soloist being recorded at 10-15' or sometimes even closer... of course all modern recordings will be mastered for balance of the soloist & orchestra. If one thinks the orchestra is recorded with mics from farther away, the resultant recording has a balance perspective, actually unheard in the hall.

The opposite to this is the early Decca recordings utilizing the Decca Tree, with 3 mics in the same place, for everything... (the good old days!)

Further to confirm Karen's point, when I listen to a violin recording, if I turn off the subwoofer amp, (add on from 50Hz), the violin loses most of it's depth, warmth & naturalness.

Ed

 

[Karen Sumner]

I completely agree here, and it's especially evident listening to typical recordings of violins vs a live violin. A live (great Cremonese instrument) violin has a much deeper voice than one typically hears on a recording.

A large part is dependent on the position of the microphones. A closer placement will have more direct sound and accent the upper frequencies, whereas any placement beyond 8-10' will capture a more reflected sound. It will sound more "relaxed" and have much less extreme high frequency detail & more "warmth" depending on the room acoustics. There really is no absolute!

The same exists when one listens to a live violin.... a sound perspective from 9-10' away is often the best balance of direct vs reflected sound. Up close, a violin's sound can hurt you!

Because, sound pressure vs distance is an inverse square relationship, small changes in microphone distances can result in large differences in microphone response. This is why, because often in concerts, since we're sitting in row M-Z, the sound is very different from most recordings, which often may have the soloist being recorded at 10-15' or sometimes even closer... of course all modern recordings will be mastered for balance of the soloist & orchestra. If one thinks the orchestra is recorded with mics from farther away, the resultant recording has a balance perspective, actually unheard in the hall.

The opposite to this is the early Decca recordings utilizing the Decca Tree, with 3 mics in the same place, for everything... (the good old days!)

Further to confirm Karen's point, when I listen to a violin recording, if I turn off the subwoofer amp, (add on from 50Hz), the violin loses most of it's depth, warmth & naturalness.

Ed

Thank you, Ed. The fact that you organize performances - record them - listen to them gives you a great perspective on what one should listen for if one's goal is to create a more musically involving listening experience in a home audio system. We need to develop a new language and news ways of expressing these musical qualities that are distinctly different from the usual hi fi lexicon. The more we talk about it, the more developed the new language will become.

I think that what Peter A. said in the Gen 6 Announcement thread is very perceptive: "When one's attention is no longer drawn to certain sonic attributes, resolution seems to increase, and one can focus more on the music and less on the system sound."

What is the slope on the crossover of your subwoofer? I suspect that the sub offers quite a lot of support for the first octave and a half of violin fundamentals.

 

[Cableman]

To truly hear the music in your listening room as the artist who performed it intended it to be heard is beyond pretty much every music lover. Why? Because you are not the artist. You don’t know what was intended and what it sounded like in the studio. You have no ‘reference’. Oh and G-D forbid you should ask an artist his or her thoughts on the sound of even their own music from your system. That don’t know high end,none I know have decent balanced musically beautiful systems. Expensive maybe. But not musical. Why? Because they, being musicians, ‘full in the (musical) gaps’, as one multi platinum artist once explained to me.

I once visited a guy with a very expensive system in a lovely room. Many classical musicians from a pretty well thought of local orchestra used to visit him to listen. They loved the sound. They were wrong. It sounded bloody awful. Musicians eh?

I used to have the best sound I have ever heard. It’s in a small crap room with zero treatment. Others came from far and wide to listen. They concurred to a man. It was awesome. Sadly I lost that sound thanks to a bloody hifi show I was presenting at. Pulled the system. Never got the sound back. Hey ho. Don’t get me wrong. It’s still stunning. Just not THAT ‘perfect’ sound.

How did I tune it then/ how do I tune inow. Why do I know it was accurate? Well per my comments above. I WAS in the studio. I DID help produce the song. And I WAS the guy who mixed it (and the rest on a multi platinum selling album) and ok’d the test pressing too.

When you have the ‘perfect sound’ you don’t just hear the music, you ‘see’ the artist. YOU are in the room with them. It’s that awesime

 

[Karen Sumner]

To truly hear the music in your listening room as the artist who performed it intended it to be heard is beyond pretty much every music lover. Why? Because you are not the artist. You don’t know what was intended and what it sounded like in the studio. You have no ‘reference’. Oh and G-D forbid you should ask an artist his or her thoughts on the sound of even their own music from your system. That don’t know high end,none I know have decent balanced musically beautiful systems. Expensive maybe. But not musical. Why? Because they, being musicians, ‘full in the (musical) gaps’, as one multi platinum artist once explained to me.

I once visited a guy with a very expensive system in a lovely room. Many classical musicians from a pretty well thought of local orchestra used to visit him to listen. They loved the sound. They were wrong. It sounded bloody awful. Musicians eh?

I used to have the best sound I have ever heard. It’s in a small crap room with zero treatment. Others came from far and wide to listen. They concurred to a man. It was awesome. Sadly I lost that sound thanks to a bloody hifi show I was presenting at. Pulled the system. Never got the sound back. Hey ho. Don’t get me wrong. It’s still stunning. Just not THAT ‘perfect’ sound.

How did I tune it then/ how do I tune inow. Why do I know it was accurate? Well per my comments above. I WAS in the studio. I DID help produce the song. And I WAS the guy who mixed it (and the rest on a multi platinum selling album) and ok’d the test pressing too.

When you have the ‘perfect sound’ you don’t just hear the music, you ‘see’ the artist. YOU are in the room with them. It’s that awesime

I got goose bumps reading your account. Thank you for sharing!

Kudos. You was there at the recording session, helped produce the album, mixed it, and was present for the test pressing — doesn't matter if it's acoustic or electronic — you know what the musical intent was. Most of us are just not that close to the music making process, so the tendency is to run around in circles looking for a solution to something when we do not understand the problem. Because you have a real reference, I believe you will get back to "perfect" again.

 

[Edward Pong]

What is the slope on the crossover of your subwoofer?

I made the subwoofer using a15" Focal driver. I was fortunate, Focal calculated the size of the enclosure and internal baffling, once I gave them the height & width I wanted to use. (I move the Quad ESL63 along it's depth to time align the woofer with the Quad panel.)
The Quads run full range and the subwoofer is added on at 50Hz with a 12 dB slope.
A JBL 2405 tweeter is added to complete the sound spectrum. It is added on at 15kHz, again with a 12 dB slope
We built an active crossover using a WE300b.

For the chamber music I listen to, the Quads have a quick natural midrange that's hard to beat. They are literally the 1st speakers I bought, 30+ yrs ago.
With the sub & super tweeter, the Quads sound completely different & can actually go very loud... the resultant sound is way more than the sum of the parts... (all very simple drivers/speakers... the magic comes from the electronics driving them!)

Ed

 

[Karen Sumner]

I made the subwoofer using a15" Focal driver. I was fortunate, Focal calculated the size of the enclosure and internal baffling, once I gave them the height & width I wanted to use. (I move the Quad ESL63 along it's depth to time align the woofer with the Quad panel.)
The Quads run full range and the subwoofer is added on at 50Hz with a 12 dB slope.
A JBL 2405 tweeter is added to complete the sound spectrum. It is added on at 15kHz, again with a 12 dB slope
We built an active crossover using a WE300b.

For the chamber music I listen to, the Quads have a quick natural midrange that's hard to beat. They are literally the 1st speakers I bought, 30+ yrs ago.
With the sub & super tweeter, the Quads sound completely different & can actually go very loud... the resultant sound is way more than the sum of the parts... (all very simple drivers/speakers... the magic comes from the electronics driving them!)

Ed

Ed -

I love your system! I think it was a pair of Quad 63s that actually first sucked me in seriously into the high end audio world. I heard one of the first pair of 63s brought into this country with Mike Kay at Lyric listening to an LP of Melina Mercouri singing. She was in the room with us!

I probably have owned at least 7-8 pairs of Quads, 2 pair of which have been ESL 63s. There's no question that the mid range is what its all about with Quads. My last foray into Quad Land was owning a pair of stacked ELSs with Decca Tweeters mounted in the middle of each stack and 2 Hartley subwoofers built into the back wall. All of this was tied together with a Mark Levinson LNC-2 Crossover. Keeping everything running in top shape in that system (including frequently replacing blown out dust covers on the Quads) was a little like owning a very exotic, high performance, antique car that we built from a kit. It took 25-50 watts to drive the speakers and 55 watts to blow them up! The sweet little hot amps we used were always ready to fall off the knife edge, too. Exciting times!

You are dedicated!

 

[Edward Pong]

Ed -

I love your system! I think it was a pair of Quad 63s that actually first sucked me in seriously into the high end audio world. I heard one of the first pair of 63s brought into this country with Mike Kay at Lyric listening to an LP of Melina Mercouri singing. She was in the room with us!

I probably have owned at least 7-8 pairs of Quads, 2 pair of which have been ESL 63s. There's no question that the mid range is what its all about with Quads. My last foray into Quad Land was owning a pair of stacked ELSs with Decca Tweeters mounted in the middle of each stack and 2 Hartley subwoofers built into the back wall. All of this was tied together with a Mark Levinson LNC-2 Crossover. Keeping everything running in top shape in that system (including frequently replacing blown out dust covers on the Quads) was a little like owning a very exotic, high performance, antique car that we built from a kit. It took 25-50 watts to drive the speakers and 55 watts to blow them up! The sweet little hot amps we used were always ready to fall off the knife edge, too. Exciting times!

You are dedicated!

The sweet little hot amps we used were always ready to fall off the knife edge, too. Exciting times!

Karen,
This is what audio is all about!!
Bravo to you!!

Ed