I listen for hours on the General's pnoes, on horns universum, and vintage tannoy 15 inch golds (did rock and blues for 8 hours straight) at 85 or more with zero fatigue. The only rest is LP change or the softer parts in classical. There is just so much ease and flow in these systems, and coherence between highs and lows. IME one of the biggest issue for fatigue is when mismatched drivers cause you to adjust the volume for bass, but it is overkill on highs, or vice versa. With coherent systems this does not happen. It does not happen on powerful amp driven apogees either as they are coherent. But drive them with low power and it begins to hurt as the system is struggling as you increase volume and it struggles with up and down swings
KeithR's "Dream Speaker" Search
- Thread starter KeithR
- Start date
Can you be more specific - peak, average, A or C weighted? Measured at your listening position?
Let's be honest guys - a YG fan and a Zu dude aren't ever going to see eye to eye. One is all about resolution, measurements, and distortion while the other is coherence, tone, and dynamics.
I've never heard a YG as dynamic as a Zu nor a Zu as resolved as a YG.
I've never heard a YG as dynamic as a Zu nor a Zu as resolved as a YG.
Sorry, Phil, but your assertions strike me as utterly strange.
Magico speakers excel at coherence; it's one of their strong points. And no, I have no stake in this game since I don't own Magico's. And yes, my own speakers, Reference 3A Reflector, are a crossover-less design.
Have I lost the plot, per the suggestion in your post? Unlikely. Regular exposure to unamplified live music is my reference.
Average at listening position. peaks can go up to 95 100 easy. During the swells, you don't feel like reaching for the volume.
Just to add before Micro asks another question. That would be A weighted too based on listening at General’s (when I have been present). Other than the odd occasion when we have a massive system blast for fun.
I think it's really cool when someone arrives at a sound they like, that they're happy with, specially if it has taken them 50 years to get there.
Where things get dicey is when people start assuming only their sub-sub-niche within the hobby is the "one true way", and everything else is wrong.
I don't doubt you hear coherence in your speakers, or "tone". But some other people might not. That doesn't make them wrong, or you right, in an absolute way.
Like the story posted earlier, I know a few other stories myself of folks who've tried everything over 50+ years as well, and settled on big cones + big amps (brand names not important). This one gentleman I have in mind actually listens to classical music exclusively.
Where things get dicey is when people start assuming only their sub-sub-niche within the hobby is the "one true way", and everything else is wrong.
I don't doubt you hear coherence in your speakers, or "tone". But some other people might not. That doesn't make them wrong, or you right, in an absolute way.
Like the story posted earlier, I know a few other stories myself of folks who've tried everything over 50+ years as well, and settled on big cones + big amps (brand names not important). This one gentleman I have in mind actually listens to classical music exclusively.
I have. YGs can do dynamics, both micro and macro, better than Zus, to my ears. Not with the same amplifier, of course.
>>When I read stuff like this, I agree with some of the conclusions about a limited amount of gear actually being appealing, but the reasoning is usually a bit silly. People simply don't know enough about how electronics, let alone speakers, work to really make the statements they do. These are merely observations that have come about. Tall tales, mostly, come out of them. There are reasons for everything you hear, but your reasons are not the same.
And I have to mention, you know most classical recordings are inherently very dry and so the tone comes across that way too? I think some people such as yourself think that isn't true, but it is... it's not even debatable because we know all the gear used, and can demonstrate it with the most annoyingly accurate gear there is. I think that you have to simply accept that you like stereos that add tone.<<
Sure, OK. I have designed and built amplifiers for sale in my past. Built speakers. I'm saturated in this realm; not unaware of how things work nor making casual assumptions. Also am fully aware of the classical music recordings traits, though it does vary quite a bit by label and hall. This rivulet in Keith's thread was kicked off by Spirit mentioning Scheherazade and scale, but my references to coherence and tone are not limited to classical music listening, nor even majority-informed by it.
No, I don't like stereos that "add tone." I aim for objective reproduction or as close as one can get to it, but that isn't always the same as "accurate" gear. I accept a dry recording for what it is and don't want my hifi to "fix" that. But when I get a wet recording, I don't want that "fixed" either. But above all, music first, recording attributes secondary or lower. I don't buy an excellent recording of uninteresting music. However, the incidence of coincident music and recording traits being desirable tends to be much higher in the roughly 1948 - 1962 studio era of simpler mic'ing, all the musicians in the room, minimal or no multi-tracking. The price is noise; the payoff is ..... coherence and aliveness. Now of course a huge portion of the music I love has been recorded since 1962, so one lives with complex mic'ing, multitracking, compression riding and all the rest. I never ask my hifi to cover it up. But even a dry recording can retain authentic tone, if the stereo playing it can pull it through undiminished. I don't want a hifi obscuring reality. I don't want it confusing a Telecaster with an SG or a Fender Deluxe with a Boogie Mark III.
I'll always take the sonic truth over willful overlaid tone, but when tone is present I want it revealed, transmitted, projected. Magico and its ilk simply don't .... can't .... do it. Which is not to say those companies don't have a constituency. They do. It's just a constituency buying something other than fidelity.
Phil
And I have to mention, you know most classical recordings are inherently very dry and so the tone comes across that way too? I think some people such as yourself think that isn't true, but it is... it's not even debatable because we know all the gear used, and can demonstrate it with the most annoyingly accurate gear there is. I think that you have to simply accept that you like stereos that add tone.<<
Sure, OK. I have designed and built amplifiers for sale in my past. Built speakers. I'm saturated in this realm; not unaware of how things work nor making casual assumptions. Also am fully aware of the classical music recordings traits, though it does vary quite a bit by label and hall. This rivulet in Keith's thread was kicked off by Spirit mentioning Scheherazade and scale, but my references to coherence and tone are not limited to classical music listening, nor even majority-informed by it.
No, I don't like stereos that "add tone." I aim for objective reproduction or as close as one can get to it, but that isn't always the same as "accurate" gear. I accept a dry recording for what it is and don't want my hifi to "fix" that. But when I get a wet recording, I don't want that "fixed" either. But above all, music first, recording attributes secondary or lower. I don't buy an excellent recording of uninteresting music. However, the incidence of coincident music and recording traits being desirable tends to be much higher in the roughly 1948 - 1962 studio era of simpler mic'ing, all the musicians in the room, minimal or no multi-tracking. The price is noise; the payoff is ..... coherence and aliveness. Now of course a huge portion of the music I love has been recorded since 1962, so one lives with complex mic'ing, multitracking, compression riding and all the rest. I never ask my hifi to cover it up. But even a dry recording can retain authentic tone, if the stereo playing it can pull it through undiminished. I don't want a hifi obscuring reality. I don't want it confusing a Telecaster with an SG or a Fender Deluxe with a Boogie Mark III.
I'll always take the sonic truth over willful overlaid tone, but when tone is present I want it revealed, transmitted, projected. Magico and its ilk simply don't .... can't .... do it. Which is not to say those companies don't have a constituency. They do. It's just a constituency buying something other than fidelity.
Phil
I got a batch of rare italian prog original LPs, and last night I played through them. This is music I've known for years, that I was excited to get originals for, having had CDs and reissue LPs for many years.
During the third LP, I reached for the SPL meter, and I was getting 95-100 average, 107-8dB peaks. Perfectly comfortable throughout the session.
This is *not* audiophile level, well-engineer big classical, this is balls-to-the-wall, 4/8 channel recordings from the early-to-mid 70s, in Italy no less. Again, perfectly comfortable at 100dB levels. With cone speakers and big SS amp, not a tube in sight.
And it's for moments like these that I love this hobby. As I said earlier, I think it's really cool when people can have this same feeling with their systems, doesn't matter the topology or their choices. Just don't proclaim their way to be the only way.
During the third LP, I reached for the SPL meter, and I was getting 95-100 average, 107-8dB peaks. Perfectly comfortable throughout the session.
This is *not* audiophile level, well-engineer big classical, this is balls-to-the-wall, 4/8 channel recordings from the early-to-mid 70s, in Italy no less. Again, perfectly comfortable at 100dB levels. With cone speakers and big SS amp, not a tube in sight.
And it's for moments like these that I love this hobby. As I said earlier, I think it's really cool when people can have this same feeling with their systems, doesn't matter the topology or their choices. Just don't proclaim their way to be the only way.
>>I think it's really cool when someone arrives at a sound they like, that they're happy with, specially if it has taken them 50 years to get there.<<
Well, I found Zu in 2004, so it really only took me 35 years to settle. -Phil
Well, I found Zu in 2004, so it really only took me 35 years to settle. -Phil
If this is true you need to make more effort to hear these speakers.
I'm not going to say anything like you can't hear the differences, because over the years there have been some massive improvements in these speakers anyone can hear, so you aren't giving them a fair shake. 10-15 years ago I thought both Wilson and YG were exactly as you claim, but now, in a properly setup system, some of these speakers are amazing.
Then I would say you haven't heard them setup properly or are unwilling to give them a chance.
In effect your choice and Phil’s is not dissimilar, so I find it hard to understand your complete rejection of his POV. I have heard all the big brands many many times over and found the coherence in simple designs of high quality more coherent...I hear the seams and would have thought you would too given your love of Ref3A. The only thing I found lacking compared to horns with the Refs is the last bit of lifelike dynamics. 5 or 6 dB/watt more would be interesting with them
That's great, but I personally don't like to go that high in volume, especially on rock with its more continuous high sound levels. I try to follow NIOSH recommendations:
https://www.gcaudio.com/tips-tricks/decibel-loudness-comparison-chart/
I have to admit, it's not always easy. Since I have the better preamp, even my system with two-way monitors can play in my mid-sized room at high, still comfortable levels without strain, and I keep wanting to crank it up. I do tame myself by regular monitoring with SPL meters, in order to prevent hearing damage. After all, I still want to be an audiophile at age 80 and beyond, should I live that long. You can't deny basic biology, it has a tendency to catch up with you if you try to ignore it.
We've debated your outlier opinion several times, but the YGs aren't even as dynamic as your Wilsons in-house. In fact, while quite a bit better than Rockport, Magico that I demo'd - YG is less dynamic than Gamut, Zu (and most horns), and Devore.
The question is what is the right level of dynamics for the individual - I willingly gave up dynamics when moving from Zu. You most likely are fine with the blend of YG level dynamics and other traits they provide you.
To be fair, he heard the YG Carmel 2 in my own room and commented on the crossover choke point in 10 seconds.
But I find the much later series Sonja 2.2 a very coherent speaker with a much better tweeter that is seamless to me and I'm not sure he's heard that one.
YG will be if you spend enough on their larger systems, but Zu is never going to resolve or play big music as well as YG.
IMO the advantages brands like Zu have are simply not there anymore besides on cost, which is very relevant as a YG speaker is probably an order of magnitude more $.
And IDK why people are so dyed-in-the-wool one way or the other... I have both 3-way boxes and a single driver horn type speaker. Both are awesome.
Yes, improper set-up is often a problem. People routinely underestimate it.
Similar threads
Members online
- Tlay
- rrobz
- Thundersnow
- Massimo66
- Downtheline
- bbill
- Gregadd
- Zarir
- andolink
- andromedaaudio
- Azjya
- Duke LeJeune
- the sound of Tao
- MarkusBarkus
- Juko
- Wavetouch
- Zdude
- tonytsui
- Lee
- audiobomber
- highstream
- 7ryder
- Strad
- onur
- lordcloud
- octaviars
- heebrog
- Salectric
- bonzo75
- Dierkx1
- rau
- IlyaP
- thase13
- austinpop
- Folsom
- fbs
- Ligriv
- Bobvin
- pdxaudio
- AudioAbe
- Another Johnson
- Argonaut
- shaizada
- marslo
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |