Mep,
Did you really believe that all audiophiles who listened using SS devices would go to Hell?
Nah, I figured they were already there.
Audiophiles and our prejudices
- Thread starter FrantzM
- Start date
Nah, I figured they were already there.
Steve williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
I think 100 watts is about minimum for speakers in the high 80s. And high efficiency speakers don't really solve the problem for me because most introduce a whole other set of things I don't like. I didn't say it was rational.
Tim
This now tracks my conversation with Orb on another thread: it's all about the quality of those watts. 20 good ones will trounce 100 so-so ones ...
Frank
Talking about not so good digital sound in a messy electrical environment, those nasty interference gremlins doing their ugly thing, Martin Collom's HiFiCritic forum has a thread running, following on his thoughts and articles that RF noise is not taken seriously enough, is possibly the next "big" thing to be looked at ...
Frank
Frank
Here we agree. I can not live with less than 100-150 of good watts for such speakers. It is one of the many reasons I envy Steve's Alexandria's - 95 dB!
That is why I am so happy with the efficiency of my OMA New Yorker horns at 104.5 or 105dB/1w/1m; I can get away with 25 watts Class A.
Rich
Gary needs to jump in here and explain why speaker sensitivity isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be in many cases. Sensitivity measurements are normally taken at 1kHz and not across the audio band and then averaged if I heard Gary correctly. I know that my speakers are rated at 92dB which is on the high side and which means they should be able to play with low powered amps quite well. They did sound fine with 100 watt tube amps. They sound great with 200 watts+ of SS power driving them. There is no doubt in my mind that my speakers (Def Tech BP7000SC) love power. Why? I suspect that the 92dB sensitivity specification is not true across the audio band and it really dips somewhere. And remember, these speakers have a built in 1800 watt amp to drive the subwoofer built in. And, the speakers are rated for a crazy 1000 watts of input power which seems very strange for a speaker with a sensitivity of 92dB.
some audiophile myths:
fidelity to the analog master. What analog master?
soundstage as a reflection of the event being recorded. On many pop recordings, the musicians weren't even in the same room at the same time.
Bill
fidelity to the analog master. What analog master?
soundstage as a reflection of the event being recorded. On many pop recordings, the musicians weren't even in the same room at the same time.
Bill
My prejudice....from 1983 through 2010...digital only. Thought the analog guys were out of their mind (I was in denial). Then I heard hi-rez needle drops and said hmmm... maybe there is something appealing about analog...I need to get a table and check things out. Glad I did...the full potential of my stereo system was never realized with digital. Now I am highly prejudiced in favor of analog. What kept me from analog so long ?
1) can't get the old OOP favorites from the days I was analog. I was wrong...I have replaced my entire record collection and it is even better than before. Mostly sealed and Near Mint quality. Of course I paid through the nose on ebay, but it was worth it.
2) Analog is a dying breed. Wrong, there is a resurgence in turntable/vinyl playback. More and More vinyl re-issues of the classics are being pressed...More new equipment...People are starting to smell the coffee.
3) Analog is expensive...well in my case it is, but a swell sounding analog setup can be had for $5k...which includes table, arm, phono pre-amp, cart. A system like that can smoke most redbook digital playback of the same material..CD vs Vinyl Record. This is my opinion of course..YMMV.
1) can't get the old OOP favorites from the days I was analog. I was wrong...I have replaced my entire record collection and it is even better than before. Mostly sealed and Near Mint quality. Of course I paid through the nose on ebay, but it was worth it.
2) Analog is a dying breed. Wrong, there is a resurgence in turntable/vinyl playback. More and More vinyl re-issues of the classics are being pressed...More new equipment...People are starting to smell the coffee.
3) Analog is expensive...well in my case it is, but a swell sounding analog setup can be had for $5k...which includes table, arm, phono pre-amp, cart. A system like that can smoke most redbook digital playback of the same material..CD vs Vinyl Record. This is my opinion of course..YMMV.
Last edited:
This may be of use to someone. Obviously it's a little dated. http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/ttcartridge.html
Attachments
I know I am not Gary but Hifi News (Keith Howard) did a great article on this a few years ago.
It even varies depending what is used such as pink noise or music and these are more accurate than a tone, and as you mention the measurement is not entirely truthful because they average it in their favour.
One example is that they measured a speaker that had 6dB difference at its worst positions, and that its sensitivity when using a more accurate calculation was actually 2db worse.
For the reasons you mention about it varying over the frequency range.
Cheers
Orb
@rockitman
The opposite happened with me favoring analog and tubes during much of the same time up to around 2000 when I quit audio for 10-yrs. Even though I still buy LPs if I lost my vinyl collection tomorrow I wouldn’t replace it. I see this ‘hobby’ more in shades of gray rather than black and white as some do, and I’ve warmed up quite a bit to digital, in fact half of my listening is off a music server and I mix ‘n match SS with tubes liberally.
The hardest thing to give up with turntables and tube gear are the rituals! its so ‘audiophile’ to want to tweak gear, roll tubes, etc. I’m over it to a large extent and want convenience and value both more synonymous to my pocketbook with CDs and SS.
LPs are no doubt here to stay, Chad is no dummy and me thinks he’ll profit well with the opening of QRP. For me it’s becoming harder and harder to justify $50 for a 45-rpm LP that’s an umpteenth reissue of some schlocky ‘70s rock album. much of the recorded output over the last 20-yrs is natively digital, especially classical music. To me the worst of both worlds are digital LPs. With SPARS codes now missing from all new releases I’ve just decided to cease buying any recent recordings on vinyl.
The opposite happened with me favoring analog and tubes during much of the same time up to around 2000 when I quit audio for 10-yrs. Even though I still buy LPs if I lost my vinyl collection tomorrow I wouldn’t replace it. I see this ‘hobby’ more in shades of gray rather than black and white as some do, and I’ve warmed up quite a bit to digital, in fact half of my listening is off a music server and I mix ‘n match SS with tubes liberally.
The hardest thing to give up with turntables and tube gear are the rituals! its so ‘audiophile’ to want to tweak gear, roll tubes, etc. I’m over it to a large extent and want convenience and value both more synonymous to my pocketbook with CDs and SS.
LPs are no doubt here to stay, Chad is no dummy and me thinks he’ll profit well with the opening of QRP. For me it’s becoming harder and harder to justify $50 for a 45-rpm LP that’s an umpteenth reissue of some schlocky ‘70s rock album. much of the recorded output over the last 20-yrs is natively digital, especially classical music. To me the worst of both worlds are digital LPs. With SPARS codes now missing from all new releases I’ve just decided to cease buying any recent recordings on vinyl.
I can understand your displeasure of this...Digital remaster's and masters of analog recordings/live sources. Obviously I prefer OOP records from the day, from analog master's however, interms of digital masters/remasters cut to vinyl ? I look at it this way...at least I'm getting 24 bit D/A (hopefully) making the LP stamper. With CD's, your getting downsampled (most likely) and dithered down to (bit-rate) 16 bits. The sound quality is taking a significant hit. This point cannot be argued, imho. Cheers and all the best !
Sorry, I would have to put that in the category of a "prejudice", the point in fact can be very vigorously argued: there's plenty of room in 16 bits for audiophile quality, but less than top notch mastering and end user player capability can make one think otherwise ...
Frank
But Frank...16 bits isn't the same as the 24 bit master, is it ? An D/A 24 bit playback of the 24 bit master to cut the shellack, then record stamper is going to be of higher sound quality, imho and experience.
LPs mastered from 24 bit accepted but it has to be played back on a *turntable* imo the achilles heel of the LP format. To my ears the colorations introduced by any combination of 'table/arm/cartridge is an order of magnitude greater than the difference between 24 and 16 bit comparisons. BTW, are you rockitman from rennlist? my handle was "fahren affair" till i gave up on poorshas
Cheers
Rob
Cheers
Rob
Similar threads
