Speakers; When is good enough, enough

savelife said:

So why does it matter if your speakers are accurate?

Click to expand...

It matters.

While I recognize that the recording process is not perfect and that unwanted sonic artifacts can easily enter the chain, the recording knowledge and the equipment we have are the best that sceince and engineering have to offer at this time. Every recording effort has its problems and limitations.
The effort of capturing a performance onto a medium we can reproduce at home comes with the hi-fi objective of extracting the best possible REPLICA of that performance. A recording is a REPLICA. A REPLICA is never the REAL thing. But a good REPLICA comes close.

At home, our playback system recovers the information on that REPLICA with the best possible playback equipment we can afford. Having neutral, transparent and accurate playback system makes it possible for us to hear what was recorded in such a REPLICA. It is the objective of a Hi-Fi home playback system to reveal a RECORDING by reproducing it without any coloration. It is NOT the objective of hi-fi playback to render a LIVE performance at home. Though an excellent recording played on an excellent, neutral, transparent and accurate player, amplifer and speakers in a reasonably treated room can APPROACH or sound like a live performance. But such a perception becomes a subjective function of the listener's remembrance of how live music sounds.

So why should an accurate speaker matters? OR for that matter an accurate, neutral and transparent player, an amp and the room? Because an audiophile wants to hear the recording. Not the speakers. Not the player, not the amp. And certainly not the room.

I am a board certified clinical hypnotherapist. I have a Ph.D. in Clinical Hypnotherapy. I have 32 years of practice experience. I teach clinical hypnotherpay to psychologist, M.D.'s and dentists. I have written many scientific papers on the subject of modification of human behavior with use of hypnotics (see web site www.newlifeclinics.org. I can tell you that much of what you observe, and read regarding subjective audio experience regarding hi-fi gear and the like is purely placebo, and hypnotic in nature..

The above is very commendable, but how may I ask do your credentials qualify you as an audio expert?

Cheers

Hey pal,one doesn't need to be a doctor or an expert to figure out if he likes what he hears. Is it hypnosis when I discover that a Lexus rides & performs better than a Kia? Or is the Lexus name a placebo too? Ironically,the best sounding gear I've HEARD happens to be rather expensive.

Dr. Dean it seems to me that you're talking about two things.

One, I do agree that placebo effects can and do occur. I'm a film editor and sometimes I'll be asked to make a minute change. I've had people working with me say that it looks better on playback when I haven't even changed anything yet, I was merely previewing the images. I think that's the same kind of situation that your talking about with comparing certain hifi gear.

Second, I disagree and believe that recordings can approach the original recorded sound. Is this also a placebo?

surveyor said:

I can tell you that much of what you observe, and read regarding subjective audio experience regarding hi-fi gear and the like is purely placebo, and hypnotic in nature..

The above is very commendable, but how may I ask do your credentials qualify you as an audio expert?

Cheers

Click to expand...

I don't get where you are going with this and whose response you are referencing to. If it is av_philes, I did not read anything that he stated that was not within the spirit of what started this thread which is quite simply, when is good enough, enough?; (with respect to speakers) which is a valid question and worthy of discussion. As I read his reply it was in response to a question by savelife "So why does it matter if your speakers are accurate?". He gave what I would consider a concise answer when he says:

The effort of capturing a performance onto a medium we can reproduce at home comes with the hi-fi objective of extracting the best possible REPLICA of that performance. A recording is a REPLICA. A REPLICA is never the REAL thing. But a good REPLICA comes close.

and

So why should an accurate speaker matters? OR for that matter an accurate, neutral and transparent player, an amp and the room? Because an audiophile wants to hear the recording. Not the speakers. Not the player, not the amp. And certainly not the room.

Click to expand...

I may have chosen the word facsimile, but that is just semantics. As I re-read it, replica may be better for this example. Unfortunately, we are going to hear the room, as it is probably the single greatest influence on the 'sound' of a speaker.

Of all the components within an audio system, speakers have more 'diamonds in the rough' that any other piece of equipment. If you look around long enough, you will find those little gems. You know the ones that have no right sounding as good as they do, yet they do. Speakers are IMHO the hardest to recommend to someone as the listening room and personal preferences play such a large roll in reproducing music into our homes. One persons 'clear and articulate high end' is another persons 'grating and over etched treble'.

My current speakers are 7-9 years old (modified B&W's augmented by a REL sub). I have not heard anything newer (that I am willing to pay for) that betters this current set-up enough [based on my likes/dislikes] to warrant me replacing them.

As I write this, the Allegro from Shostakovich’s' Symphony No. 1 (op. 10) is spinning on the TT. My humble little system (nor any system) is going to be able to recreate a 'live' performance of this piece in a home, but I can appreciate the interplay between the instruments and the sense of timing that the musicians demonstrate. The essence of the piece is laid before me to enjoy and the sense of what the conductors’ vision for this piece comes through (and how it differs from that of another conductor). This is what a good pair of speakers should do, that is, allow the essence of the performance and the vision of the artist to come through whether it is Classical, Jazz, R&B or good ol' Rock 'n' Roll.

Oh, and in case you are wondering what my credentials are for making this assessment:

I have been an audio enthusiast/hobbyist for 20+ years; I have two degrees in electronics and have repaired, upgraded and modified or built almost all of my own equipment; I have helped three churches purchase, install and balance out their sound systems as well as helped a local community college upgrade and improve the sound system for their performing arts theater. I have been recording live performances of music (jazz, small chamber ensembles, piano and choir) for at least 10+ years although not for the last two because of other obligations.

I also play the French horn, trumpet, 2 valve cornet, bugle, the tuba and I dabble with the baritone & tenor saxophones as well as the flute.

I guess you can say I just enjoy music.
__________________

Nice post. I like your your quote on the bottom - but I can't help think that people think that way because the time domain wasn't addressed. Ha!

I don't get where you are going with this and whose response you are referencing to. If it is av_philes, I did not read anything that he stated that was not within the spirit of what started this thread which is quite simply, when is good enough, enough?; (with respect to speakers) which is a valid question and worthy of discussion. As I read his reply it was in response to a question by savelife "So why does it matter if your speakers are accurate?". He gave what I would consider a concise answer when he says:
Quote:
The effort of capturing a performance onto a medium we can reproduce at home comes with the hi-fi objective of extracting the best possible REPLICA of that performance. A recording is a REPLICA. A REPLICA is never the REAL thing. But a good REPLICA comes close.

and

So why should an accurate speaker matters? OR for that matter an accurate, neutral and transparent player, an amp and the room? Because an audiophile wants to hear the recording. Not the speakers. Not the player, not the amp. And certainly not the room.

I am merely getting to the point that even though I don't have a PHD in anything, I do not think that mine or many others ability to tell the qualatative difference between good and bad gear is a figment of my imagination!

Cheers

Savelife

Dear audiophile;

In response to When is good enough, enough, (refering to hi-fi loud speakers) I think you missed the point after reading my epistle ...but then again, maybe that's what I get for assuming readers will "read between the lines".

A speaker is only good enough when it can duplicate the original sound it is duplicating with such a high level of accuracy that no measurement device, including the human ear/brain, can detect any difference between the original sound and the speaker's duplication of the same sound. Of course this is impossible with todays technology. Because of the fact the original sound must, in some manner, be converted to electrons which race down wires at the speed of light, which are resisted and capacitated which will always cause a difference between the original and replicated sound. Therefore, I ask the question, why strive for perfect replication if it is not doable? Further, since it is not currently doable, why should anyone labor over the concern of how accurate or "good" their speakers are, or in this case, when is good, good enough? What matters is if the speaker SATISFIES its owner with the clear understanding that the owner is not hearing anything remotely true to the original sound recorded on the replicating media.

A speaker is not a music reproducer because it cannot accurately reproduce the original sound of the music it is attempting to replicate. All a speaker can do is take what is fed into it electronically and produce a "resemblence" of the original sound. Therefore, a speaker should not be called a speaker, it should be called a noise, sound or "musical instrument".

For the record, my first stereo speakers (noise makers) were Bose 901's (back in the 60's when they were the rage). From there I went to ESS Heil airmotion transformer A-1's, then the mighty corner Klipshhorns with center Belle Klipshorn, next came Theater Jensen A-5, then moving on to DQ-10-A's, then to Electrovoice 10-B's, then Martin Logan SL-3's and now a custombuilt $50,000.00 speaker system designed and built by Dennis Dean, Ph.D., an acoustical/audio engineer who fortunetly happens to be my brother.

Now let me tell you something about my home theater. My speakers (musical instruments) feature Scanspeak's slit-cone midrange Revlator drivers and matched silk dome tweeters (their best and most expensive drivers). The upper bass woofers are Daton Titanic III 10-inch drivers and the sub woofers are Daton Titanic III 15-inch woofers. The fs is 19 Hz and in their enclosure go down to 16 Hz at 125 dbs measured at one-meter (they rock the house when they achieve room lock). These speakers are 4-way tower floor standers. The cabinets are 2-inch MDF, braced, properly dampened, and stuffed with a proprietary filler. The weight is in excess of 375 lbs each! The center channel speaker uses the same tweeter and midrange driver as the left right towers. The center channel bass is channeled to the left-right tower woofers via the pre-pro (small speaker setting). The center channel also have two Revelator slit cone mid range drivers and the speaker is laid sideways on its own dedicated stand which places it dead center to the bottom of the movie screen. Cross over and phasing are set to eliminate lobing. The rear surround drivers use linium ribbons and 5-inch hexacone drivers with passive 24 db/Oct cross overs which are housed in a a nonresonate aluminum enclosures. These quasi omnidirectional speakers are ideal for surround speakers. They are mounted 7 feet from the floor on the sides and rear of the theater seating area. They are set on the small speaker setting in the prepro, thus utilize the left and right front main speakers woofers for bass below 80 Hz. They, along with the center channel speaker are crossed over at THX's recommended 80 Hz point. The sub woofer consist of a custom built 450 pound enclosure, tune ported per computer analysis which sports two 18-inch drivers. It works down to 12 cycles (- 3 db point which is the limit to our measurement equipment). Its efficiency is 95 db at 1 meter, 1 watt in put. The drivers are made by Focal (Jm Labs) in France. All speakers are padded to a 90 db output at one meter. All speakers are electronically crossed over and triampliefied with Anthem amplifiers @ 200 watts per speaker (each speaker has its own dedicated amplifier)!

My home theater pre-pro is a RDC-7 Integra Research (latest model with all upgrades). My DVD-CD player is Sony's flagship NS999ES DVD/CD/SACD player. Inter connects are Monster M-1000's wires. Speaker cables are good old fashioned 14 gauge Belden, oxygen free copper wire for the tweeters and midrange drivers and 12 gauge for the woofers and subwoofers (more about that later). My video consist of an 84-inch Stewart Grayhawk electric retractable screen. The overhead-front projector is a Sony Hi-Def LCD Cineza (the only dront projector I have ever viewed that projects a picture which looks good when an end table lamp is turned on in the room). I use Monster's line conditioner powered by a TripLite power converter transformer set up. All AC lines are dedicated 20 amp and grounded with a 3-foot copper stake in the ground. TV reception is DSS satellite. All Inter connects are 2 meters or less in length. Speaker wires are 18-ft. or less. My room is 12-feet high, 18.5 feet wide X 23.5 feet long and semi open to a hall, foyer and dining area (which make wonderful bass traps). This, mathmatically, causes a 34 Hz, 45 Hz and 72 Hz 5 db suckout, a mild 3 db suckout at 52 Hz and a huge 12db boost at 62 Hz and a 4 db boost at 80 Hz. This is corrected with an Audio control 1/6 octave bass equilizer (set with calibrated mic and meter), plus judicious phase adjustment to the sub woofers. The bass frequency measurement while in the main seating area of the room (14-feet from the center of the screen) is + 2db, - 1.5 db from 120 Hz to 18 Hz. The entire system from 20 Hz to 11K Hz. (the limit to my hearing) is + or - 2.5 db @ 4.5 meters from the center speaker, while seated as measured on an HP real time spectrum analyzer. Acoustical treatment consists of hung decorator rugs on the back walls, large back wall book case stuffed with books and nic-nacks, an acoustical fluffed (popcorn) ceiling, a 9 X 12-ft. area rug, and very soft, absorbant, dual pleat blinds which may be dropped down on the side walls exactly where the first sound wave launch hits the wall. Speakers are properly placed by comuter and sound meter analysis.

One last thing regarding your comment on replication and judging the ability of
componants to bring you nearest the original sound (my words, not yours). I'm so sorry, but I do not buy into 90% of the hype brought to us audiophiles by the commercial sector of our hobby and the home entertainment industry at large. My brother, an audio engineering whiz kid has proven to me what is real and what is not. Let me rehearse with you an example of how he does this.

We gathered up a 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press). We also rigged up 14 gauge, oxygen free Belden stranded copper wire with a simple PVC jacket. Both were 2 meters long. They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing. Volume levels were set at 75 Db at 1000K Hz. A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass). None of us had heard this group or CD before, therefore eliminating biases. The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them). This was done 7 times in a row! Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! Unknown to me and our 12 audiophile buddies, prior to the ABX blind test, he took apart four coat hangers, reconnectd them and twisted them into a pair of speaker cables. Connections were soldered. He stashed them in a closet within the testing room so we were not privy to what he was up to. This made for a pair of 2 meter cables, the exact length of the other wires. The test was conducted. After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use. Needless to say, after the blind folds came off and we saw what my brother did, we learned he was right...most of what manufactures have to say about their products is pure hype. It seems the more they charge, the more hyped it is.

So you see, my friend, that is why I have joined up with this site (audioholics) because their approach to good sound and education to acquire good sound and video is based on science, not hype, hypnotics, placebo effects or wishful
thinking.

My best regards;

Dr. Bob Dean

Is your speaker system time coherent?

Have you ever been in a high end recording studio?

I don't disagree with what you're saying, I'm just trying to understand a little better where you're coming from!

Mr. Dean, I have a question. Can I see some pictures

savelife

Dear audiophile friends;

Hey guys! Quit ganging up on me! You all grossly missed my point in my previous replys in this thread.

First of all, I'm a new (61 year old) kid on this block who has been involved in hi-fi for over 45 years. My Father managed the Fox West Coast Theater Chain of Theaters. I was raised in the movie business from being in a buggy in the box office while my Mom sold tickets to sweeping the isles free of popcorn and candy wrappers for ten-cents a day when I was 8 years old! I even remember the big Altec Lansing theater horns and Klipsh Horn speakers behind the big silver screen.

When television came into its own in the late 40's early 50's, my Dad got into the television retail business. With that came the old console monophonic high fi's. Then came stereo, then componant stereo and my Dad's business, Dean's TV & Stereo became a chain of hi-fi equipment stores throughout the San Francisco bay area. For several years I was a wholesale rep of various brands of hi-fi equipment. I loved it because it was not only my living but my hobby.

My older brother and I went our different ways. We returned to school and got doctorate degrees. I got one in Clinical Hypnotherapy (a branch of psychology). He got his in audio engineering electronics. We are both doctors (Ph.D.) in our respective fields. As all of this went on, we both, with a passion, pursued our audiophile hobby and shared much in that regard with each other. I tought him things regarding psychoacoustics, placebo effect, catalyptic and somnabulistic hynotic suggestability and other mind altering issues that are most definetely connected to our hobby. In turn, he instructed me on electronics, sound and all of its related eliments regarding our audio/video equipment and the rooms in which they operate.

So does that make me an experet. Nope!...but it does make me an avid hobbiest in home audio/video.

One of you compared what I said to knowing the difference between driving or riding in a Lexus and a Kia. My friend, we are talking apples and oranges. I own a Lexus RX 300 sport ute. I know there is a difference. However when you tell me that you can hear more accuracy or accurate sounding music on an expensive "flag ship" speaker system driven by high-end electronics, I can prove to you that what you really hear is a more pure form of the distortion of the real sound that was recorded.

My point is this gentlemen (and ladies). If you will own up to the fact what you hear is not what was the original sound, and further, admit that the sound one component may make versus another (which is subjective and hynotic in nature) is simply a matter of one's preferences and belief system. It is not by the furthest stretch of one's imagination the sound of what was recorded.

I believe the objective of audioism is not to find the holy grail of perfect sound reproduction. Quite frankly, at this stage of our evolution and technology, that is impossible...but perhaps doable in milenia to come. I believe the objective is to assemble a system of electronics and sound instruments (speakers) which when played will:

(1) Last a decade or more without any service problems.
(2) Will not become obsolete because they can be modified to stay current with the best technology has to offer.
(3) Pleases you in numerous ways with its operation, appearance, and above all, its own "unique" sound. In otherwords, does it make music having full knowledge that what you hear is not what it sounded like in the original venue recording session. Close...maybe, but still not the same. Since it is not the same, is what you hear enjoyable. Does it do something positive for you. If it does, you have the right speakers driven by the right electronic components.
(4) It must be cost effective. Why spend $8,000.00 on a pair of two meter speaker cables when you can get the same exact job and results with $10.00 worth of oxygen free, 14 gauge Belden copper wire properly soldered end connectors.
(5) It must generate fun for all involved. Some systems sound boring, some are absolutely alive (such as on large horn speakers). Others are polite, compressed, but accurate (Martin Logans, Quads). Then again, others are explosive and extremely good at creating "illusion" of reality such as Wilson Wamm, and like speakers in the $50,000 to $125,000.00 bracket. They draw you into an altered state of mind (hypnosis). Add to this the placebo effect caused by clever marketing hype and a concensus of opionion from the audio/video press and community of hobbiests that you have the best, and you'll believe you have discovered audio nervina. Now pick which noise maker is the most fun for you and you'll be happy.

Finally, gentlemen, spending hundreds of dollars for a ceramic speaker wire lift (which lifts the wire off the floor to save it from effecting the sound of your speakers caused by floor vibrations striking the wire), and numerous other bull pucky tweeks and beliefs is what makes our hobby appear rather checkered to scientist and engineers who know the truth regarding these matters.

Now if you don't agree...hey!...that's great! Debate ads flavor to our hobby. For instance, I like a well engineered horn sound system for big rooms and dynamic speakers for medium rooms and electrostatic for small rooms. Your preferences my be different. Why? As a "shrink", don't get me started...but I can throw this money wrench into your thinking. We all have a differently shaped inner andout ear. Some have smaller ear canals than others. Then we all have slightly different receptors in our brains. This means we all HEAR DIFFERENTLY. Indeed, we all have different frequency limitations that we can hear. I can hear flat up to 8,000 Hz with a 3-db roll off to 11,000 Hz, thereafter hearing is dead. My wife can hear to 18,000 Hz flat. She hears overtones on a triangle or chime I cannot hear. So she may prefer a different speaker to make music she can hear which I cannot. Since none of us hear the same, how can we possibly evaluate a sound system the same and come up with the same opinion? We can't. Therefore, what one so called audio expert (rag writer) sais is not true for you or I unless we hear exactly as he does. Since we don't, may I suggest you throw what he writes or says out the window as nothing more than what it is...that's what HE HEARS and nothing more. Bottom line...you must listen for yourself to know the truth for you. That's why there are over 800 different speaker manufacturers because there are atleast 800 different opinions on how a speaker should sound. Your opinion...what you think a speaker should sound like is all that counts. It must make you happy or why bother.

'nuff said.... just... Dr. Bob

Guys, this is staring to drift off topic. Please go back and reread the original question. Savelife, yours is an interesting series of dissertations, but it doesn't address the question. Your "credentials" are not an issue. I believe the original post concerned the point of diminishing returns, not a debate upon the merits of double blind testing nor the usefullness of advanced academic degrees.

This is an interesting topic that perhaps could best be discussed in a new thread.

savelife (Dr. Bob)

docferdie said:

I truly believe that the next big step in entertainment would be when you can bypass the eyes and ears altogether and deliver electronic information for processing by the brain. It will probably be another 20 or so processor cycles but I am optimistic that I will get to see true virtual reality in my lifetime.

Click to expand...

If such a chip is developed it will end the perpetuation of the human race. Why go through the act of having sex (and its related problems and diseases) when one can merely have sex and resultant orgasm or ejaculation in the mind via the chip.

Think about it.

Dr. Bob

Now, a post addressing the actual topic! I would be much more inclined to spend $20,000 on speakers than $10,000 on an amp. Say what you will about cables or power cords, or even amps and CD players, but nearly anyone can easily tell speakers apart in double blind testing. Claims of many audiophools to the contrary, I'd assert that speakers are the only link in the chain (downstream of the actual software) where you can easily differentiate between them. And since it's the only part of the system that actually makes any sound, I feel this is where the bulk of ones budget should be allotted.

Is there anything better than the original posters Paradigms? Absolutely there are. Are any of them worth the extra money? Again, to me absolutely. But that must be judged by each individual.

Here's an interesting tidbit that perhaps Savelife can comment on: back when Edison was demo'ing his early phono's, supposedly many ordinary folks were purportedly unable to distinguish between the recordings and an actual voice. This may seem absurd today, but consider that even tho we're intimately familiar with the human voice, normal speech covers a very small slice of the gamut. And under some conditions there are many speakers that could completely fool you into believing the sound is real. Are there any double blind tests of speakers vs actual sounds? That could be illuminating. Perhaps some of these issues will be spun off into a new topic.

In summary I think spending more money doesn't automatically get one better sound, but the best speakers I've heard were all fairly expensive. But you certainly can make a lot larger improvement in sound by treating your room. Given the choice between $100,000 of electronics in an untreated room or $10,000 of gear in a well treated room, I think the latter would give far better sound. But I believe that most people dream of the former.

savelife (Dr. Bob)

Rob Babcock said:

Guys, this is staring to drift off topic. Please go back and reread the original question. Savelife, yours is an interesting series of dissertations, but it doesn't address the question. Your "credentials" are not an issue. I believe the original post concerned the point of diminishing returns, not a debate upon the merits of double blind testing nor the usefullness of advanced academic degrees.

This is an interesting topic that perhaps could best be discussed in a new thread.

Click to expand...

Agreed. One last word. A speaker is good enough when you no longer consider replacing it with another speaker because it satisfies and makes you happy. Short of that, it will never be good enough. If it is not good enough, stop tormenting yourself, sell them or trade them in and get what your heart desires. Then you'll be a happy audiophile.

Now, with a devilish grin on my face I'll send you my bill for this therapy and counsel in the mail today.

My best regards for a speedy recovery from your split audiophile personality.


Dr. Dean @ savelife

OK Doc. My car comparison was in reaction to your statement which,in a nutshell,said what I thought was a better sounding speaker wasn't really better,but that since it cost more my mind was telling me that it has to sound better. I disagreed because I know thats not true. I've been around long enough to know that you can slap a $20k price tag on $100 widget & a good part of the general public will accept it as being a quality item. That's elementary. Compared to you & others on this site,I'm a novice in the hifi world. But that doesn't mean I can't discern quality from junk.And who would I be to call someone elses gear "junk" if they truly liked it?
I guess my point would be that I took a bit of offense to your initial insinuation that I(or all other non-P.H.D.s) aren't hearing what we think we are hearing.
Yours is an interesting tale. Enjoyed it.

savelife said:

Dear audiophile;

A speaker is only good enough when it can duplicate the original sound it is duplicating with such a high level of accuracy that no measurement device, including the human ear/brain, can detect any difference between the original sound and the speaker's duplication of the same sound. Of course this is impossible with todays technology. Because of the fact the original sound must, in some manner, be converted to electrons which race down wires at the speed of light, which are resisted and capacitated which will always cause a difference between the original and replicated sound. Therefore, I ask the question, why strive for perfect replication if it is not doable? Further, since it is not currently doable, why should anyone labor over the concern of how accurate or "good" their speakers are, or in this case, when is good, good enough? What matters is if the speaker SATISFIES its owner with the clear understanding that the owner is not hearing anything remotely true to the original sound recorded on the replicating media.

Click to expand...

The objective of Hi-Fi PLAYBACK is never to duplicate the "orginal sound". It is to reproduce faithfully the RECORDING. Replicating the original sound is the hi-fi RECORDING objective. And that's what recording engineers and studio strive to achieve. Not home listeners with their playback gears.

Like I said, getting accurate speakers and other playback gears matter because they allow the recording to pass through unimpeded and uncoloured. It is the recording you want to listen to. And audiophiles strive to get the gears, and the room accoustics, out of the way, so to speak. In the real world, however, this is rarely achieved without great expense. A recording is a REPLICA of the performance. And is never the real thing. But the closer the perception is to the real thing based on the listener's idea of how the real thing sounds, the more it SATISFIES. And because the pursuit of Hi-fi is often limited by many factors, not the least of which is the financial muscle often demanded by the hobby, it is no excuse to reduce Hi-Fi to a mere pursuit of what is euphoncally satisfactory. Otherwise, even a walkman or digiman can sound euphonic and satisfying. Or for that matter even an MP3 recording. But Hi-Fi pursuit does not end there.

You said you play many instruments. I too play the accoustic guitar and a fretless bass guitar and a little piano. I once recorded some solo stuff at home, with all the ambient noise and dogs barking outside, on an half-inch Memorex tape on a Teac open reel deck played on a Sansui AU-D11 drving a consumer grade Sansui speakers. I must say I got the impression I was listening to the real thing when I played them back. They sounded DIFFERENT alright. But in no way was I getting an awful recording and if I didn't know how the real thing sounded, I would say the home recording was almost the real thing. Now that's at home using mediocre gears. How much more in a first rate studio with first rate gears and performers?

Have you tried a simple home recording on your excellent gears?

A speaker is not a music reproducer because it cannot accurately reproduce the original sound of the music it is attempting to replicate. All a speaker can do is take what is fed into it electronically and produce a "resemblence" of the original sound. Therefore, a speaker should not be called a speaker, it should be called a noise, sound or "musical instrument".

Click to expand...

I am a bit confused by your assertions. How can a device that is "not a music reproducer" be called a "musical instrument?"

For the record, my first stereo speakers (noise makers) were Bose 901's (back in the 60's when they were the rage). From there I went to ESS Heil airmotion transformer A-1's, then the mighty corner Klipshhorns with center Belle Klipshorn, next came Theater Jensen A-5, then moving on to DQ-10-A's, then to Electrovoice 10-B's, then Martin Logan SL-3's and now a custombuilt $50,000.00 speaker system designed and built by Dennis Dean, Ph.D., an acoustical/audio engineer who fortunetly happens to be my brother.

Click to expand...

Nice equipment. You odessey speaks so much like everyone else in this hobby. And mine, but on a less grander scale. So is $50,000.00 the light at the end of the tunnel, as it were? Can I expect to end my Hi-Fi playback quest once I get a similarly priced set of speakers?

Yes but getting back on topic, how much better is a set of 50,000 dollar speakers compared to a 5,000 set? are they 45,000 dollars better? Could anyone tell the difference doing ABX testing with all else being equal? With amps I have found out more $ does not mean better sound. Is it the same with speakers once you reach a certain level? I know what the audio snobs think but I want the truth. I can tell you this much; I once listened to a complete Macintosh system that was 65,000 dollars in cost and it sounded like ****! Not as good as my NAD 2600, Adcom preamp, and Dynaudio 24w100 dual 9's with the D28 tweeters 18db per octave at 2000hz in a DiAppilito config, with leap designed xovers. Not nearly as good. And you all thought I did not know what I was talking about when it came to speakers. I have been around


Just for fun one time a friend and I got a deal on some Bose 8in paper cone replacements drivers and some Vifa tweeters. So we built these towers with 10 woofers each and 4 tweeters, They sounded only fair but damn they were loud. We each had a NAD 2200 powertrackers that bridged mono to 400 watts. Huh you want to talk about loud. After the party we took them apart

It's funny because the day that I bought my McIntosh amp, I heard a rig in the store that I really did not like. It was a pair of 1200 watt Mac amps driving a pair of Joseph Audio Pearls. I just did not like it - but I was there to pick up my (lower powered) amplifier, and I'm glad I bought it because it was an immense improvement to my rig at home. It blew away my old bi-amped Arcam setup - I was pretty surprised.

So that's my defense for Mac gear Getting back on topic, at a certain point your returns diminish greatly. It takes a lot of dough to make marginal improvements in sound quality. I think that's why some designers (and reviewers) like the less esoteric stuff. It's more fun to see how one balances affordability with sound quaility.

Since we're talking about resumes, I too have some experiences - both professionally and in the "real" world!

I have a DIY speakers using a mix of Fostex mids/tweeters and Cerwin Vega woofers and I must say, comparing with some expensive speakers out there, they're no slouches. Do they sound life-like? I don't think so, based on my recollection of how a symphony orchestra sound in the few concerts I attended. I don't think speakers at home can. They sound different. But in serious listening on loud volumes, they give me goosebumps once in a while like being seated at the front rows during a live performance. That's good enough for me.