Is High End Audio Gear Worth the Money?
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
I understand and agree Elliot. I try never to describe the sound of a system I have not heard, at least in detail. I do know what a good steak tastes like, but not the particular steak you might have eaten last Saturday night at your favorite steak house.
I was simply describing what I heard in common from a number of systems that to me placed an emphasis on detail over other qualities. It was a comment about balance, referring back to a quote by Karen Sumner. Ron then projected a description onto one of the systems I actually heard. I do not really know why or why he used "skeletal" and why Bonzo seemed to agree with him. Maybe it is just they way they hear Martin Logan/Spectral/MIT systems sounding. A different friend told me such a system sounds like his worst nightmare, without going into details. I think it is the nature of forums, perhaps audio forums more so, that people want to express their opinions and join the discussion. Each of us has a unique set of experiences and knowledge of this hobby. I have little of either, but I know what I like, like others here. And we enjoy sharing and arguing. Perhaps we can simply not control ourselves. I surely do not know the reasons.
All you have to do is listen to albums that have alternative tracks, often the tracks that were not issued on original studio albums. Less manipulation and adjusting almost always sound better to me. Dylan has a whole series of these alternative takes.
I am agreeing with Ron’s word to summarise your description. I have no idea about the sound. But when Ron said skeletal, you said no, and proceeded to use a description that Ron correctly quoted back as skeletal. Which is the post I liked
All you have to do is listen to albums that have alternative tracks, often the tracks that were not issued on original studio albums. Less manipulation and adjusting almost always sound better to me. Dylan has a whole series of these alternative takes.
I have two early Black Sabbath LPs, reissued with alternate takes on a few of the tracks. They sound great on their own, but also for being different from the official releases. Some are without Ozzie and just instrumental.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
that was Harry Pearsons original mission statement when he started the Absolute Sound. This however IMO is not where we are today. I try when I setup/install/tune my system and when I do it for others to work from the simple to the complex. Trying to get a solo acoustic instrument, a voice, a violin, a guitar to sound natural and "correct" is always my initial preference. I feel if I can get that correct I will live with the rest which as you stated becomes more of an art form than a total reality.
I’m not sure this will be compared to simple raw live recordings without any mixing afterwards, but maybe I’m wrong, I’m not familiar with the recording you mentioned.All you have to do is listen to albums that have alternative tracks, often the tracks that were not issued on original studio albums. Less manipulation and adjusting almost always sound better to me. Dylan has a whole series of these alternative takes.
Voicing on comercial recording will mostly be good enough, you won’t mix piano for violin. But its still a mix and not raw recording, the latter one should be in theory higher fidelity and sound with more fidelity to real instruments, or singer voice.
Have you formed any hard knowledge on what element(s) in your setup/install/tune that made the greatest improvement, and why?
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
Peter,
We have another example, not saying its good or bad, of a word, a word that has no actual defined meaning to everyone, and using it to define and describe sound. One may interpret that word to mean different things. I may think its bare bones, no flesh , no body to the sound, therefore having a negative context. Others may think its bare bones and no fluff, no color, just the straight forward slimed down basic of the music and a positive / Maybe there are other choices its a word and words have different meanings to people. Audio and HP tried to use photographic terms to decide what he heard. He defined them for his readers. You may agree or disagree but that is what he did or attempted to do, I feel many people do not use these words as I would, or you would, or others here would.
For example
What is depth?
What is soundstage?
what is transparency?
I could go on and my point is these words do not mean the same thing to everyone here let alone the entire audio world. I experience this every single day, every show, every review and almost every conversation except those with people who "I" have listened together and have agreed upon what we hear and enforced the meaning of those words together. This is not universal , in fact its not even a minority as in Audio everyone's opinion becomes their own truth and therefore their own dictionary.
Elliot G.
Industry Expert
Ill answer you this way since I don't think I have done some type of formal analysis. I do know the thing or type of things I am listening for. I have my long term experience with doing it and lots of systems that I have worked on. My main goal is make myself get lost in the music. I do know for sure that you can't please everyone and that as Forrest would say is all I am going to say about that
I have a series of recordings I like to use including spoken voice. I like that since we all listen to voices everyday of our lives in various acoustic environments. All of these are tools that I use to get to the next step or level if you prefer and work towards getting satisfied. This for me is not a short term project.
No worries. Just roll in a tweeter at 12KHz or so.Hello
Yes but you give up the high frequency tailoring from the secondary resonance in the surrounds. So they tend to be more rolled off in the last octave or so with Kapton. Jerry Moro did this with the 2431/35 435Al/Be 3 inch drivers depending on the smaller diaphragms to be pistonic up to 15K or so for the Be.
Rob
I can tell you that a JBL driver converted to field coil sounds better than a stock JBL with the same diaphragm. I've heard the comparison. Worth the extra cost IMO.
I've been running them this way for over 20 years and since it sounds better, the disadvantage is apparently outweighed by the advantages. The field coil has reached a stable temperature in less than an hour.
I didn't say $3000, for the record. These days I'd start with a set of Audiokinesis subs to handle the bottom end; they are flat to 20 Hz and since there are 4 of them, standing waves are broken up so no need for room correction (90-95% of room problems are in the bass). I'd consider a refurbished Dynaco ST35, for the amp, perhaps with some upgrades. A set of Tangband full range drivers in a sealed box allowing them bandwidth to 50Hz or so can do nicely, supplemented by a Fostex tweeter or similar on top, both crossed over to prevent comb filtering. I'd use a Topping D90SE and perhaps a Shanling CD transport; no need for a preamp if digital is the only source. But if it isn't I'd get a Technics SL1200G, Hana cartridge and install an Oracle platter pad on the Technics. The stock Technics pad is terrible and if you've not heard the machine with a decent one, you've not heard it. There are plenty of preamps around that can handle a LOMC cartridge and drive the Dynaco ST35.
Inexpensive, nicely nuanced (musical) and can play a decent volume in most rooms no worries (the Tangbands are 96dB in the box with crossover), flat to 20Hz so can shake the walls.
The Dynaco (17 Watts/channel) can challenge any SET made no worries; you don't really find out why SETs went the way until you hear PP amps of similar power. The Topping DAC is extremely neutral (I have one and have compared it to master tapes). The weakness of the Tangbands is like any 'full range' driver in that the highs are beamy to a fault; easily fixed by a tweeter and a crossover for it. None of this stuff is expensive but it will cost more than $3000.00. I imagine if you were careful about things you could bring the cost down quite a lot.
We all use the same words online to describe our experience. So one person might be using the same language to describe a 1970s Pioneer receiver while the other is describing high end horns with Berning's $120,000 power amps (or whatever they cost...). The words work but the intensity of the experience is not conveyed.
i have some 1/2" 30ips unedited 1st generation 'work parts' from this recording session. a Concert Grand Steinway. raw? yes. they are very, very real.....for reproduced music. technically excellent to the degree i am able to judge. maybe the closest to real i've had in my system. FYI the 4xdsd file from the same mic feed while very fine, is not really very close.
might be interesting if anyone here has a Steinway in their listening room how close might this get to that.
this is not my favorite or best recording playback experience. it needs some context added. it's an more an ultimate objective thing to hear. 'real' in and of itself is not enough. but it is something.
Last edited:
I didn't have a Steinway but I did have a singer/songwriter. The problem is the room acoustics are 'doubled' when you play a recording of music made in your room in your room.
Noise will be one difference. There's always noise in a room caused by air moving around at the very least. Sensitive mics pick that stuff up like crazy; things you don't notice when standing by the mics. So if you have the recording done in a nice venue and then compare to the live sound directly, the extra noise will be a tip-off unless the mic is right on top of the piano.
I am no stranger to vintage speakers, as many here probably are as well. At their best, I find their sound can be extremely seductive. While I have not heard any of David Karmeli's systems in person, based solely on videos I am not sure I would enjoy the sound, but that's just me. I prefer a simpler and more intimate sound, for example from these (video, again, but they share similar traits with the Altec 755A I owned so I have an idea of the sound):
But let's face it, all these have limitations. They reveal aspects of what's possible with audio and inform us in our personal journey.
Last edited:
It's not 30 ips tape but the Yarlung 15 ips tapes get the instrument timbre and overall realism correct.
It is about overall balance. That balance depends on the makers' values, the priorities of the listener, the choice of the gear, and the way it is set up. No systems sound alike, but some lean in a particular direction, and others lean in other directions. In my opinion, the best systems are well balanced.
It is not what I have in mind. My comment is actually based on what I hear from a variety of systems. You would have to ask the system owners what they have in mind and if they are striving for accuracy on some measurable criteria. I have no idea, and you are just guessing.
I have heard more systems than you condescendingly suggest, but I am sure not as many as some other members here. Of course I do not think the world of audio is limited to my two Magico models and those vintage systems I heard at DDK's house. What a strange comment.
Well of course. We can hear systems for ourselves, read the descriptions of others, and listen to imperfect system videos. This is a hobby and people share and have all sorts of opinions. People choose whom they trust and base their opinions on all sorts of factors.
We listen and make choices and follow our own targets based on our own values. The best systems are less limited, so we can reduce the compromises by choosing carefully following criteria important to us. It is basically an individual hobby and we occasionally share and gather with friends. It can be enjoyed in many ways.
No, not all modern systems are bad but the subject is about ideas not components.Well, it looks you stopped in the 70's ...
These are long gone waters!
It is fascinating that in current high-end we can have both - good measurements and great sound.
David also uses modern systems like Weiss, CEC, Lamm , …
My favorite descriptor is "organic". Seems to be in vogue these days. Someone try to define that please. A synonym for natural? All of this just underscores the frailty of words when trying to describe sound in a "universal" context.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |