Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?

[bonzo75]

Do you have a link ? I could not get you older Zero Distortion links to work the other day.

No I never wrote about it. My ZD site had some virus hit or something and I have had zero time to look into it

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

This apparently has been done in a 500Hz horn application with bandwidth past 15KHz. But I'm not talking about the 375. I know the drivers of my horns are JBL but I don't know which model.

The advantage of a field coil is the magnetic field does not sag when current is applied to the voice coil, if the power supply is properly regulated.

And the disadvantage, and this is just one of many, is that a diaphragm reacts to heat and inside a field coil driver, the temperature rises with continuous use. That means, the surround becomes softer and softer over time. Room Temperatures are usual between 18-28 degrees Celsius, depending on the season. We've conducted hundreds of tests that prove it. Furthermore, even the WE555 only achieves a maximum of 1.5 Tesla of real power in the gap. That's significantly less than what's always being told. 1.9 Tesla is a myth. I currently have a few GIP555s here for repair and for building a power supply, and I've had the chance to measure and listen to them again.

 

[Hornsolutions Swen]

Hold on let's set the record straight here the 375 in the consumer version, the Pro is the 2440. The 375/'2440 was never available stock with Titanium. They both used Aluminum with a half roll suspension. Many were "updated" with Ti diaphragms in the field when they became available.

Rob

https://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/pro-comp/2440.htm

Sorry, my fault. You're right, the 375 was the consumer version.

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

He is very adaptable and willing to try everything without being dogmatic about anything. I really respect his approach to building his system.

only thing I can loose is my pride......

 

[bonzo75]

Hold on let's set the record straight here the 375 in the consumer version, the Pro is the 2440.

Yes but also 2440 is available at much lower price than 375

 

[bonzo75]

only thing I can loose is my pride......

If you want pride on us forum you need to buy latest Magico or Wilson

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

or change your flag

 

[Robh3606]

Yes but also 2440 is available at much lower price than 375

A typical 375's had a charmed life compared to 2440's used in professional installs and on the road. There are also much fewer of them in comparison. Hence the higher price. One thing to look out for are cracked throats. If you can get a chance to actually inspect the drivers check the throats, pop the back caps and see what diaphragm it's loaded with and make sure there is no internal corrosion. Change the foam in the back cap it will fall apart and gum up the works.

Rob

 

[PeterA]

It's also a matter of context and expectations.

Anyway, what PeterA claims (as stated in other posts) is that some systems emphasize the "bits and pieces". This is the point of view that Karen Sumner describes, without beating around the bush, here:

SPACE: THE FINAL FRONTIER

I haven’t been in a rush to discuss the final frontier of space because imaging and soundstage are hot buttons in the hi fi world, and the concept of “space” that I will describe here requires a total recalibration of the concept of space as it is widely accepted in the hi fi world. Before we...

www.whatsbestforum.com

"Hi fi sound does not believably reproduce the sound of acoustic instruments in space because it typically doesn’t capture the body and complex overtonal structure that is embedded on most recordings. Because these systems also do not capture the nuance of dynamic fluctuations in the middle frequencies, they limit our sense of instrumental presence in space because of reduced loud to soft volume boundary reflections. Much of what connects us emotionally with music resides in the mid-band where the essential musical qualities of fundamental tones, instrumental timbre, and harmonic richness reside. This is not news, but those who are looking for hi fi sound seem almost allergic to these “heavier” essential qualities that create a full sense of ambience and presence because they tend to obscure some of the hi fi artifactual details they are seeking. The standard is to seek pin-point holographic imaging and highly articulated higher frequency harmonics without an appropriate measure of fundamental tonal foundation or overtonal richness. The hi fi based imaging construct renders a sense of musicians playing holographically against a “black background”. Hi fi sound advocates want their systems to produce these tightly defined details, but at the expense of the far more abundantly rich, low-level details that are inherent to the live music listening experience."

I have no idea how she came to these conclusions, but that's the rhethoric for some of the criticism about "high end"... The irony, of course, is that she sells 77.000$ speaker cables. I guess there's "high end" and "high end" (just like there's "detail" and "detail" in her above explanations).

All this gives me a headache.

I try to avoid reading things they give me headaches.

I view resolution holistically. Actual acoustic music has both mass and foundation and also detail and rich tone. There is no reason that a good system can not present the information on a good recording naturally to the listener in his room. Such a presentation will have the same basic character as acoustic instruments invoices hard live. I understand that some systems favor detail over reach tone, body, and foundation but other systems can achieve a nice realistic balance and sound quite convincing, in my opinion.

I really liked Karen Sumner’s series of essays and I wish she were still contributing to the discussions here. I find her essays very insightful.

 

[hopkins]

I understand that some systems favor detail over reach tone, body, and foundation

What does this even mean? (even after correcting the typo on "rich"). How does a system "favor detail"? Over what?

I am going to guess that what you have in mind are systems that strive for "accuracy" on some measureable criteria - the most obvious would be frequency response - there are others. In some cases, this probably does come at the expense of resolution. What systems have you heard? Your previous Magico speakers, a few others at Kramelli's? Do you think the world of audio is limited to these?

Resolution is also obviously a form of "accuracy", but it is impossible to measure, as every single piece of equipment (speaker drivers, cabinets, crossovers, cables - even K.Sumner.s - amps, turntables...) introduce distortions (inaccuracies). Does your system offer good "resolution"? Who knows... We will just have to trust you when you say that it comes close to the sound of instruments. I can find a dozen examples of people who claim exactly the same thing listening to completly different systems...

The problem is that no system reproduces sound "naturally". You just decide what you think sounds good to your ears, and put aside limitations that you personally find less important (as we all do).

 

[Sc00ter]

30 years ago someone asked my what makes an audio product high end. I had to think about it and being me, it took a while.

High End Audio is driven by intention rather than price.

That is why someone can put together a system for a few thousand that can easily rival or surpass something that cost a $million.

Here's a simple example: there are SETs that make 7 or 8 Watts that cost over $10,000. But you can find EL84 based amps that can rival or surpass them in every way for a fraction of that.

Another: Tandy Corporation bought out Linaeum just so they could use their tweeter on a couple of speakers that retailed for under $600/pair. Those speakers got a lot of nice comments in the high end magazines (the Optimus LX 4 and 5 if anyone is interested; BTW there are replacement woofers available for them...). Radio Shack was not considered a high end audio manufacturer. But that happened out of intention.

Another: Topping has been making a very decent line of DACs for some years now. A few years back we had their cheapest one at the time, the D30 ($125.00 including shipping at the time), in the shop and had opportunity to compare it directly to a tubed DAC that cost over $4000.00. The Topping was smoother, more detailed, not bright (like the other was), played bass beautifully and generally was easy to listen to while the other was not. Their more expensive DACs are better and no-one likes to talk about it, but if you have a recording in digital format that you know really well (in my case because I recorded it) then if you're being honest you realize that Topping is delivering on what digital has been promising but falling short of for many years. Think about it- if the digital is being done right you should not be hearing big differences between DACs but you do; IMO mostly because a good number of them lack competence although some are excellent, which includes Topping.

I'm not saying that some far more expensive DACs aren't worth the money. If a competent engineer really goes all out and sets the bar high you can have something wonderful. And they are out there (and cost a bit too).

I can go on but you get the point.

Its all about intention.

“That is why someone can put together a system for a few thousand that can easily rival or surpass something that cost a $million.”

Please share, if you will, the component list for this $3,000 system…

 

[PeterA]

What does this even mean? (even after correcting the typo on "rich"). How does a system "favor detail"? Over what?

A Martin Logan Spectral MIT system belonging to a local audiophile friend favored detail over rich tone, body, and mass. He described it as accurate. The problem was that it sounded the same regardless of recording. This was by design and his selection and set up method. His system reflected his priorities. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ron Resnick]

A Martin Logan Spectral MIT system belonging to a local audiophile friend favored detail over rich tone, body, and mass. He described it as accurate.

I think I have a pretty good sense of how that system must've sounded. I probably would describe it as "skeletal."

 

[the sound of Tao]

Unlike in the U.S., houses in Europe are generally smaller, and most people live in apartments within multi-story buildings rather than in detached houses. Large, high-sensitivity JBL monitors are difficult to fit in such spaces and normally lead to complaints from neighbors.

It’s a different story in Japan. I don’t know how or why Japanese audiophiles overcome these challenges, but they have a strong dedication to large speakers in small rooms—where you can adjust the volume control without even leaving your seat.

Great observation on the wild examples of Japan’s great audio setups in modest sized rooms… maybe easier to see how this is more possible with horns that don’t necessarily interact with the room as much but integrating large sealed or reflex cone subs in high density urban spaces is amazing… and yes the neighbours!! Must be possibly even more of a challenge over in Hong Kong… is pretty extraordinary how far we’ll go in this fabulously crazed pursuit. Think we should at times applaud extra fine madness.

 

[PeterA]

The problem is that no system reproduces sound "naturally".

I agree with this. A chain of electronic components cannot produce sound “naturally.“ A stereo system is a man-made contraption. Good stereo systems, however, can present the information on a good recording to the listener in a way that sounds natural to him. If you don’t like the word “natural”, you can use “realistic”, or “convincing”.

 

[PeterA]

I think I have a pretty good sense of how that system must've sounded. I probably would describe it as "skeletal."

I would not. It was a highly detailed sound, but it lacked body warmth, richness, and weight. It also had little soundstage information. I heard a similar systems in Connecticut and at my local dealer, Goodwin’s high-end. They all favored detail over what I refer to as resolution. The quote from Karen Sumner describes my experience very well.