Proton 550

[TLS Guy]

Those Infinities are far and away the best speakers I have had in that room. I think they have tremendous sound. Basically ass-kicking sound combined with the floor-firing 10" Klipsch sub. My objective in getting another amp is to make them sing as best as they possibly could.

Honestly I think they already are. And yes, the sound in that room is good, but changing amps won't make it better, unless you buy a much more powerful amp and play it louder which I do not advise, as if you blow a tweeter you will be in trouble. Given the size of the room and the speaker location, it would be a huge challenge to improve on what you have.

 

[Squishman]

Honestly I think they already are. And yes, the sound in that room is good, but changing amps won't make it better, unless you buy a much more powerful amp and play it louder which I do not advise, as if you blow a tweeter you will be in trouble. Given the size of the room and the speaker location, it would be a huge challenge to improve on what you have.

I am fortunate I happened upon that Yamaha. I got it for $30 I think. Or it may have been $35. I call that a bargain.

 

[m. zillch]

Solid state electronic devices like receivers can last years, sometimes even decades, but mechanical devices that have moving parts eventually degrade and then break down.

I once asked a speaker designer why he always used foam surrounds around the circumference of his woofers whereas butyl rubber was known for better durability and greater immunity to damage from years of exposure to ozone and UV light. He said (paraphrased):

"All we really care about is best performance, which foam gives us, both from day one to the end of the warranty: 5 years. Many customers report much more than just 5 years, often even double or more, but we never sold the product claiming 'these are the last ones you will ever buy and will never wear out.'"

 

[TLS Guy]

Solid state electronic devices like receivers can last years, sometimes even decades, but mechanical devices that have moving parts eventually degrade and then break down.

I once asked a speaker designer why he always used foam surrounds around the circumference of his woofers whereas butyl rubber was known for better durability and greater immunity to damage from years of exposure to ozone and UV light. He said (paraphrased):

"All we really care about is best performance, which foam gives us, both from day one to the end of the warranty: 5 years. Many customers report much more than just 5 years, often even double or more, but we never sold the product claiming 'these are the last ones you will ever buy and will never wear out."

Good rubber surrounds are very durable. I have six KEF B 139s in daily use, that are forty or more years old, and they are as good as the day they were new. In fact the four KEF 139s in my rear back speakers were first installed in 1978!

 

[Squishman]

 

[m. zillch]

Hmm. As I understand it that "King of receivers" was a two box design and I'm not sure but the impression I had was they did not bolt together. (the black part and the wood part) but they looked attached. So carrying it as is shown makes me raise an eyebrow but I'm not dead sure.

I think this is just an AI depiction of a "big receiver" The real ones were called
Sansui QRX 9001? Pinoeer SX-1980?

This G-3300 is clearly two boxes:

 

[Squishman]

Hmm. As I understand it that "King of receivers" was a two box design and I'm not sure but the impression I had was they did not bolt together. (the black part and the wood part) So carrying it as is shown makes me raise an eyebrow but I'm not dead sure.

Yeah. No doubt it's fake. Pretty sure my friend had that monster Sansui you mentioned.

 

[m. zillch]

The funny thing is what impresses me is how small a system is (yet with good performance) To me that's always been the goal which is why my first CD player, for all use (home, portable, car) was this one c.1984/5:

 

[Squishman]

The funny thing is what impresses me is how small a system is (yet with good performance) To me that's always been the goal which is why my first CD player, for all use (home, portable, car) was this one c.1984/5:
View attachment 80156

Very cool how it hovered the CD above the player. Just kidding ha.

 

[m. zillch]

Sony had one that did "hover" part of the disc at least:

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

Some in the pro community are starting to put the the pieces together and are starting to realize that the reason competent preamps (kept below clipping) measure so well on paper yet many/(most?) people claim to hear distinctions is because they aren't doing fair, bias-controlled testing (blind and precisely level matched, for example).

This is an excellent video, and to say that it is causing quite a stir is an understatement. There are now tons of defiant counter videos and every single one I've examined bring no valid arguments other than "trust me I'm an expert", some even going so far as to supplying botched/(rigged?) demos. [I downloaded and measured one of their supposedly "level matched" comparisons and discovered that when measured using a proper methodology their claim of being "matched" is false].

But, but, but....then came this video, this guy disagrees.

"It's the easiest thing to disprove, because I've been doing it for 8 years on youtube".

"If you can't hear the difference between those, your ears are probably not at a level that makes you qualified to even debate this subject."

LOL!

 

[m. zillch]

^I downloaded, carefully isolated a 5.435 second section, and then analyzed that "This guy is wrong" guy's first "demo", he plays 3 minutes into his video, a few days ago.

He either mistakenly (or deliberately?) botched the levels of the 4 test sequences I measured, by either average levels in Audacity or psychoacoustically-corrected level analysis such as ReplayGain, so of course they "sound" different for that reason alone! Sheesh, this is the oldest trick in the book in audio!

My analysis shows the levels when compared correctly—rather than simplistically using just peak level analysis—are all over the map considering we can hear small differences of even just a half dB, or so, at least under the right conditions:

[Individual 5.435 sequences I isolated (and time-synchronized) available upon request.]

His test was also sighted, not blind like it should've been, and some of his preamps even have his name on them flashed on screen as you hear them so that can certainly sway people subliminally.

 

[Out-Of-Phase]

"I didn’t do a Null test, because it’s not necessary. You can hear the difference between these preamps, and volume, and in character."

Mr. Colt performed all his tests sighted and not volume level-matched.