Component Choice : The Audiophile Perspective

[FrantzM]

Hi

Let's try to be sincere, candid and frank here ... I’ll go first
After almost 6 years without a speaker-based system with which I am comfortable ( I dabbled some with an Apogee Diva but the room could not take them and a Kef LS50 that left me pleased with what they can do but ultimately unsatisfied< I like speakers that canscale from very small to humongous big when and if the music requires it . That is not a knock on the LS50, they do some things better than any speakers one is likely to find at multiple the price but … I am readying myself for some purchase and construction and learning and anxiety for middle of next year) ...
I have been an orthodox audiophile for many years. A few years ago I had an epiphany of sort... I discovered I wasn't able to recognize the virtues of my expensive cables when knowledge was removed ... and I wasn't alone. I am speaking for myself however; thus came a change of attitude toward High End Audio orthodoxy and common but too often unverified truisms. I became a skeptic. It helped me focus more on value and on Music in general... I moved toward Headphones with élan and thought I would have one or two headphones .. I have now 5. :b ... and I would have 2 headphones amps, I have 4, 2 Dacs... Now I have 5... :b x 5.. Why 2? one for the Desk and one portable... So I admit it I am an audiophile. I suffer from the FOMO disease and I do hear differences between my h'phones and my amps and my DACs.. I have kept whatever cords were shipped with the phones but I resigned myself to acquire a few more rugged USB cables .. Do I hear a difference between these and run-of-the-mill USB cables? ... I haven’t bothered but my phone charges faster when connected with the rugged USB cables ...
I Would have loved the one appliance approach of the Devialet but progress in DAC is too lighting fast IMO to lock myself to one DAC ... I could be proven wrong but ... so I got an amp.
I have some leaning mainly the Merging Pro Hapi which is the exact same interface as the Horus or the Hapi at half the price of the NADAC... a no-brainer in my book... Cables... I will choose some well-made cable and be done .. I will not eternalize on these...
Then comes speaker and this is the subject of his thread a little bit …I will use the Geddes or Harman multisubs approach configuration (very similar) .. So ultimate intrinsic bass capabilities is not an issue, I would have preferred an essentially full range speaker because the better scale well. Small speakers in my book remains small even when helped with a sub below … When proven wrong I will bow to the evidence for now I maintain this POV.
I am a planar fan. I have come to see Dynamic speakers have advanced to the point of supplanting planars in term of SQ .. to a point and this should not be constructed dismissal of planars ... I still love them and in term of bang for the bucks ? Nothing compares and even if you remove this factor some planar do things most speakers can’t ..
But I have heard horns and those are seductive and there are the new dynamic speakers .. Things like the beguiling Magico and the Rockport … Notice that all these are usual audiophile fares… I have not yet gone out of the beaten path. … ? The point I am trying to make is that there are too many choices and little immediate information about what is out there. We may have developed a paralysis. On one side there are the audiophile-approved stuff.. Wilson , Magico, ARC, CJ, Krell , etc and on the other side Pro Stuff… Other brands whatever that mean, etc … How would someone decide between those… The mind may decide before audition as many would not want to think that a Crown would for example beat a Lamm or a Burmester .. Ohhh! The horror of thinking about these but here we are. Has anyone compared say Lab Grupen with Krell or Lamm on a Wilson? We also tend to go for what I would call conventional pairing ARC/Wilson, .. Rare are Krell and Maggies or Quad. One of the best Maggie system I have heard was with a Krell KSA-200 on Mg 1,6 or 3.6 IIRC … Or Krell and Quad.. Someone in NYC had the Krell KSA-50 driving a pair of Quad Crosby … Heaven but you rarely if ever see those.. It is implied too quickly without audition that the Pro (or not well known brand with audiophile desires) stuff is not up to the task.. Recently I re-visited the Beolab 5 and people, it sounds good… Not mid-fi good.. Simply good, touching most of the audiophile points.. of accurate rendition of voices, clear deep bass, good imaging , stupendous dynamic and wide-sweet spot and it is not a speaker but a system it has everything: Speakers, Amps, DAC, subs and DRC (to a certain extent), and there is JBL 4367 at $15K for example t seems to perform extremely on objective parameters such as Dynamic Linearity and flatness/smoothness of FR that sans DSP/DRC while sounding good in the process, so good they replace the fabled Giya G3 in one audiophile setup… And there are the virtually unknown speakers we don’t care enough about to discuss and that without hearing just one note form those. I think many who have heard these or similar design are hesitant to come forward and share their impression because those items (mainly speakers for the purpose of this discussion) are not peer-approved. So they are avoided and the discussion centers on what is approved by the community of audiophiles… What do you think? How do we go out of the beaten path? isn’t that how the High End took birth? Opinions as usual are welcome.

 

[Robh3606]

Why limit your choices to "Audiophile approved" Really what the heck does that mean. Just keep an open mind and go looking. You must have some idea what direction you want to go in. It doesn't matter if anything you like is peer approved or not it's a personal choice. Just go with what you want and like. Don't worry about the mass hysteria that is the high end and just enjoy yourself. My best systems use DIY speakers that I wouldn't trade for anything, very little of the electronics would pass muster and I could care less. Every time I power up a system I have a great time. That's all that matters.

Rob

 

[FrantzM]

MAy have come out wrong... It was to be TOngue-in-cheek. I didn't mean that what we need must be approved. I am rather interested in the discovery of different out of the beaten path but subjectively good components or./and systems. Experiences, for example your choice of speakers is rather unusual in those circles. Same could be said about DDL's Siemens... That is what I tried to convey ... It is not a matter of approval really.. Rather one of discovery for the sake of better reproduction in one's dwelling.

 

[Al M.]

Small speakers in my book remains small even when helped with a sub below … When proven wrong I will bow to the evidence for now I maintain this POV.

Madfloyd doesn't seem to think my speakers sound small, see here. If I ever go Magico, I'll go for the Q1 monitors.

 

[FrantzM]

Madfloyd doesn't seem to think my speakers sound small, see here. If I ever go Magico, I'll go for the Q1 monitors.

DO not take it personally. I love big speakers.. In my experience mini-monitors + subs always sound like that even when the bass is fully integrated it is like something is amiss. Yours could be an exception and I will try to audition these as soon as I am in the Boston area
The kef LS50 do sound like a well behaved full range with a swarm of painfully adjusted subs but ultimately their limitation in dynamics did not staitsfy me. They remain very good speakers nonetheless.

 

[Al M.]

DO not take it personally. I love big speakers.. In my experience mini-monitors + subs always sound like that even when the bass is fully integrated it is like something is amiss. Yours could be an exception and I will try to audition these as soon as I am in the Boston area
The kef LS50 do sound like a well behaved full range with a swarm of painfully adjusted subs but ultimately their limitation in dynamics did not staitsfy me. They remain very good speakers nonetheless.

I don't take it personally, I just wanted to provide information. Madfloyd talks in that post also about "an abundance of presence and dynamics" in my system. Having said that, his much bigger Magico M Project speakers are the best speakers I have heard, but they come with a price tag of course.

Once you are in the Boston area, please feel free to come listen to my system.

 

[fas42]

The physical size of the speakers has absolutely nothing to do with the "bigness" of the sound IME - except, the smaller units tend to be less efficient, forcing the amplifier to work harder, which leads to the audible disappointments. It's the ability of the full ensemble to go well past normal SPLs without straining that allows for effortless, "how big do you want it?" sound.

 

[DaveC]

IMO, you need big woofers, the more surface area the better... no matter what subs you're running. And if you want a speaker that can do small scale without the performers seeming like giants a speaker that approximates a point source is better than line arrays or stats.

 

[JackD201]

I think one should first key in to what aspect of music one requires most. I have very large speakers so many might assume that it is the dynamics I go for. In fact, in my case, it is tonal quality. Big dynamics is the cherry on top, an indulgence. Good tone is my minimum requirement. If a desk top radio or car system can at least do that right like say the little Tivolis and a HK Logic 7 system respectively, I can begin to enjoy. As such my go to instrument for basic evaluation isn't the usual use of piano recordings but rather cello recordings. Usually by either Rostropovich or Starker who we have been fortunate enough to have been left with good recordings of.

When hunting I'm not after near perfect sound but rather listening for potential. In a relaxed state and an open mind I try to leave myself open for glimpses, those Aha! moments so to speak. Since in an unfamiliar setting I can't discern the contributions of individual components, I begin with the point of first contact, the loudspeakers cross referenced with the acoustical environment they are placed in. From there it starts the domino effect that goes up the chain. Amps must have enough headroom first and foremost. From there, make the conscious choice of how wet or dry I want my electronics to sound, something I attribute to distortion spectra in turn and in part related to rise times, slew rates and damping factors. When we get to the source it is also about tonal balance. I already know timbre was there from first point of contact. The question is how well rounded the source is. If it flatters some instruments over others that is a bad omen for me, I'm looking for even handedness to go along with low noise and detail retrieval. Headphones for me are a great tool for laying a source components faults bare.

I know I'm near the finish line, when the urge to just sit and listen is too strong to keep tweaking. At this point I know things are good enough.

I don't know how many "I"s I've used in this post. I do know it is a whole lot! That I think is the point. It is personal so the best bet against making a bad investment is knowing full well beforehand what one's requirements really are.

 

[fas42]

From there, make the conscious choice of how wet or dry I want my electronics to sound, something I attribute to distortion spectra in turn and in part related to rise times, slew rates and damping factors.

Jack, why wouldn't you want 100% dry, if you mean by "wet or dry" the level of "effects" distortion?

 

[Al M.]

I don't know how many "I"s I've used in this post. I do know it is a whole lot! That I think is the point. It is personal so the best bet against making a bad investment is knowing full well beforehand what one's requirements really are.

Absolutely! You make a very important point here, Jack. I have the feeling that too many audiophiles "want it all". They don't realize that everything is a compromise, unless you have unlimited amounts of money to throw at everything, including the room (you obviously know about the importance of the room, Jack, yours is gorgeous).

So knowing that you cannot "want it all", you have to make choices, according to personal preference. Which things are more important to you than others? Accordingly, choose components that play to your preferences.

One reason why I personally did not (have to) radically change my system every few years is that I knew from the onset what was most important to me, and which compromises and shortcomings I can live with. Saves a boatload of money!!

(My speakers and amps, while modified, are 25 years old, my interconnects and speaker cables are 23 years old. My subwoofer is 16 years old.)

 

[DaveC]

Absolutely! You make a very important point here, Jack. I have the feeling that too many audiophiles "want it all". They don't realize that everything is a compromise, unless you have unlimited amounts of money to throw at everything, including the room (you obviously know about the importance of the room, Jack, yours is gorgeous).

So knowing that you cannot "want it all", you have to make choices, according to personal preference. Which things are more important to you than others? Accordingly, choose components that play to your preferences.

One reason why I personally did not (have to) radically change my system every few years is that I knew from the onset what was most important to me, and which compromises and shortcomings I can live with. Saves a boatload of money!!

(My speakers and amps, while modified, are 25 years old, my interconnects and speaker cables are 23 years old. My subwoofer is 16 years old.)

For sure, there is so much personal preference involved. It's obvious due to the differing opinions of rooms at audio shows....

Also, I've been having people over to test drive the speaker I'm working on, and I just let them listen without saying a word to both my horn speaker and my dynamic reference speaker. It's very interesting to hear the variety of thoughts and especially what people really key in on, it's different depending on the person and varies quite a bit. Some are more sensitive to certain frequency ranges, some notice soundstaging a lot, others place less importance on it. It's been very interesting... One thing though, everyone notices and comments on the quality of the bass frequencies and the differences between the two speakers. Bass is ultra important to get right... the foundation for the rest of the music. It's also the most expensive and most difficult to get to sound right.

I also agree with Cello for testing purposes, it's not easy to get right since the sound is across such a wide variety of frequencies and if there are discontinuities across drivers Cello can highlight the issues. Then vocals, we have an innate feeling for if they are right or not...

 

[zztop7]

Tone

In fact, in my case, it is tonal quality. .

+1 Without Great Tone, everything else is a waste.
zz.

 

[Al M.]

One thing though, everyone notices and comments on the quality of the bass frequencies and the differences between the two speakers. Bass is ultra important to get right... the foundation for the rest of the music. It's also the most expensive and most difficult to get to sound right.

And without a proper room bass is also hard to get right. Some rooms can remain untreated and stlll deliver good bass, but these are an exception. For most cases I would say that the budget for a system MUST include proper room treatment. For a recent experience of mine regarding bass reproduction and room treatment, see this thread:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?20189-ASC-tube-traps-effect-of-their-absence

I also agree with Cello for testing purposes, it's not easy to get right since the sound is across such a wide variety of frequencies and if there are discontinuities across drivers Cello can highlight the issues. Then vocals, we have an innate feeling for if they are right or not...

Yes, indeed. Cello is very hard, for the reasons you mention and also because reproduction requires a high level of timbral resolution. One of my best audio experiences involved cello:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12853-Sublime-Sound/page10

(2nd post on page.)

 

[fas42]

Yes, indeed. Cello is very hard, for the reasons you mention and also because reproduction requires a high level of timbral resolution. One of my best audio experiences involved cello:

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?12853-Sublime-Sound/page10

(2nd post on page.)

Nice description there ... I noted you saying

It was simply astonishing how the speakers could so faithfully portray the hefty physical excursions and wooden resonances of the instrument while fully and completely keeping their composure, without adding any perceived colorations.

This type of playback quality should be standard fare on audio systems - the fact that it's not is a bit of an indictment of the industry as a whole, I'm afraid ...

 

[PeterA]

Nice description there ... I noted you saying

"It was simply astonishing how the speakers could so faithfully portray the hefty physical excursions and wooden resonances of the instrument while fully and completely keeping their composure, without adding any perceived colorations."

This type of playback quality should be standard fare on audio systems - the fact that it's not is a bit of an indictment of the industry as a whole, I'm afraid ...

I think the quality of the audio system itself is only partly responsible for this. Timbral accuracy, tone, resolution, dynamics get you far, but not all the way toward a sense of realism and presence that make the performance "in the room" for complete emotional satisfaction and involvement. In my experience, how the system is set up in the room, that is, the relationship between the speakers/room/listener, imay in fact be more important in determining whether or not a system can do what Al M. is describing here.

 

[fas42]

In my experience, how the system is set up in the room, that is, the relationship between the speakers/room/listener, imay in fact be more important in determining whether or not a system can do what Al M. is describing here.

It seems to be that there are quite different experiences to be had, depending on how one listens to music, and sound. I have yet to perceive that the speakers, room and listener relationship is so critical in the listening, probably because I relate strongly to the 'texture' of the sound as compared to other things - if I had a real, world class cellist playing in my house I would be able to appreciate that experience no matter where I happened to be in the room, or if standing in the doorway, or down the hall - that's the sort of way I like to listen.

 

[bonzo75]

Hi if you are sticking to dynamic speakers, subs, and digital, try going multichannel, especially with auro 3d or atmos if you like classical.

Do demo a couple of systems with that set up. Audioguy and RBFC are going down that route. Kal and fitzcarldo are strong advocates of MCH too, and edorr and Brucemck2 both have one. Philip o hanlon was telling me about a MCH with vivids and the NADAC and how good it sounded. Can totally believe that. With MCH, soundstage, imaging, detail and room correction are the best, no matter what your 2 CH system is. Where you compromise are if you like the tone of vinyl and certain speakers like horns. All IMO

Also listen to a WE 16a with GIP drivers. And think of having two systems, like a Jadis with quads plus one with dynamic speakers. Look at tri stacking quads

 

[PeterA]

It seems to be that there are quite different experiences to be had, depending on how one listens to music, and sound. I have yet to perceive that the speakers, room and listener relationship is so critical in the listening, probably because I relate strongly to the 'texture' of the sound as compared to other things - if I had a real, world class cellist playing in my house I would be able to appreciate that experience no matter where I happened to be in the room, or if standing in the doorway, or down the hall - that's the sort of way I like to listen.

Yes, Frank. I think you are right with live music being performed in a room. It will sound great from almost anywhere, even outside in the hallway. But it is different when trying to make two stereo speakers sound convincing, IME. Much more difficult. I have never heard reproduced music from an audio system sound convincing unless the speaker/listener/room relationship was done to maximize the sense of presence. When it all locks in, it is quite noticeable. However, most of my experience is limited to smaller dynamic speakers and a little with planar speakers. If this relationship is not right, one can still be left with other wonderful sonic attributes, but not with a believable sense of presence. Dynamics and imaging may also suffer. This is just my experience, as you say.

 

[audioguy]

IMO, you need big woofers, the more surface area the better... no matter what subs you're running. And if you want a speaker that can do small scale without the performers seeming like giants a speaker that approximates a point source is better than line arrays or stats.

I'm not sure what "big" means in this case, but I would 100 out of 100 times take 4 outstanding (well placed) 12 inch subs as compared to a single 18 inches sub. EVERY time.