The Noob Linearity factor

[bonzo75]

I think you are over complicating things. Most people, who are here, are quite experienced and have had exposure to different types of speakers and electronics like boxes and horns and sets, but there are many other factors in play here that prevent them / us from changing direction. Lack of space or lack of money or wife and kids etc, or simply lack of access to a certain brand or product.

space, money, WAF are different things. I am not looking at what people own but what they say on the forum in terms of conclusions, e.g. that big speaker with 6 subs must be good. Or 45s will be better than 33s. Or 5 way will be the best, or costlier digital will get you to analog

 

[andromedaaudio]

Bonzo advised a PTB with NEWBY to buy SET so he can expierience WUOSSA

 

[abeidrov]

space, money, WAF are different things. I am not looking at what people own but what they say on the forum in terms of conclusions, e.g. that big speaker with 6 subs must be good. Or 45s will be better than 33s. Or 5 way will be the best, or costlier digital will get you to analog

Who are these people? I do not recall posts like this here. Apart from one ”higher power”, most people are quite sane and just share their experience.

 

[bonzo75]

Who are these people? I do not recall posts like this here. Apart from one ”higher power”, most people are quite sane and just share their experience.

oh I saw those posts too many times. It is great you think people here just share their experience. That should require only one post on their system thread after getting some component. Wonder what keeps the forum so active.

 

[the sound of Tao]

SOT Sound Of Tao i know another one .

PTB Price Tag Buyer .

Andro there’a also HAS (Horns And Set)… so we HAS those who HAS progressed and those who HAS not… PS before we have an outbreak of speaker wars I am just joking!! I swear…

 

[the sound of Tao]

Bonzo,

How does one escape the linear progression?

Why are most components very noisy?

Are Fone recordings any good?

Is Bernstein the Goat?

Do you like field coil onions?

Kindest regards,G.

Hi G, great to see you here… On Bernstein… Glen Gould said there’s only one GOAT and he’s currently on the piano.

 

[abeidrov]

I think remastering is the answer to all the problems we noobs have. Why change direction if you can just re-master?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Andro there’a also HAS (Horns And Set)… so we HAS those who HAS progressed and those who HAS not… PS before we have an outbreak of speaker wars I am just joking!! I swear…

HAS is for SNOBS.

 

[bonzo75]

Hi G, great to see you here… On Bernstein… Glen Gould said there’s only one GOAT and he’s currently on the piano.

someone mentioned that Charles Rosen said Gould couldn't play the fast left hand octaves in the Liszt transcription of Beethoven's 5th. He had to record it with two hands and dub over each other.

 

[tima]

On Bernstein… Glen Gould said there’s only one GOAT and he’s on the piano.

Baa ram ewe. To your breed your flock be true.
-- Babe the Sheep Pig

 

[bonzo75]

Bonzo,

How does one escape the linear progression?

Why are most components very noisy?

Are Fone recordings any good?

Is Bernstein the Goat?

Do you like field coil onions?

Kindest regards,G.

i think you personally need a break from your linear progression from the age of seven. Please leave your records with me, and go digital. Gain some new exposure on Qobuz

it is a win win if you donate your records to forum members. Both break NL

 

[bonzo75]

HASTA LA VISTA baby, said Arnie to his big speaker multiple sub system

 

[morricab]

By linear pattern, I mean that, taking my own example, I found B&W floor stander to be better than the standamount that was better than small speaker they used for surround sound. After that, adding their subwoofer to the floor stander further improved sonics. So I conclude that bigger speaker, plus subwoofer, gives me more weight, stage, scale, hence brings me closer to orchestra.

Now, if many years later, I conclude that XVX, Arrrakis, 4 tower something, etc etc with 4 or 6 subs will obviously bring me even closer to the orchestra, that is just me drawing a conclusion using a straight line from my early experience days. Obviously as these are more expensive and bigger, they should be be even better than the B&W plus 1 subwoofer and should be the ultimate. Other such examples are in my opening post.

Ah so it's about you. How you were this noob and somehow had an awakening that there was more than box/cone/dome and mass produced SS electronics. For sure most of us under the age of 70 probably started with such a system because, well, by the early 80s that was the paradigm for hifi systems. The high end that was being propagated by The Absolute Sound and Stereophile was very small and niche, and other than Audio Research and maybe Conrad Johnson was all about SS and boxes as well...with some sprinkling of planar speakers.

The renaissance of SETs, horns, single drivers and pushing even box speakers to higher sensitivity has allowed a change of palette to hopefully achieve a more realistic sound. There are a large number of audiophiles who stick with what they are comfortable with in that they were brought up on boxes with SS electronics and they perhaps went bigger and more expensive up to their desire/comfort level. Are they getting the most realistic playback possible? Probably not, but so what? They would counter that their way is more true to the recording...there is potentially merit to that argument but it is not a nuanced argument because it ignores a lot inconvenient truths around dynamics and psychoacoustics.

One of the main reasons someone would stay with a sound they know and just get bigger and higher power is that, at least within that paradigm, it usually does bring you higher dynamics and scale than smaller systems of that same paradigm. You can argue that it is ultimately limited, but you yourself have heard the Sigma MAAT speakers and consider them one of the best...they are perhaps the ultimate speakers of that paradigm (although one could argue there are huge conventional box studio monitors that are comparable).

Not everyone is comfortable with the tradeoffs that are inevitable with a system paradigm shift.

 

[bonzo75]

Ah so it's about you. How you were this noob and somehow had an awakening that there was more than box/cone/dome and mass produced SS electronics.

I already mentioned in an earlier post to Ron that the points in the opening post are conclusions I reached in the middle of the journey that I moved on from.

One of the main reasons someone would stay with a sound they know and just get bigger and higher power is that, at least within that paradigm, it usually does bring you higher dynamics and scale than smaller systems of that same paradigm. You can argue that it is ultimately limited, but you yourself have heard the Sigma MAAT speakers and consider them one of the best...they are perhaps the ultimate speakers of that paradigm (although one could argue there are huge conventional box studio monitors that are comparable).

I did not say they cannot be true at times. The Sigma MAAT that you mentioned, I heard 4 of those systems, the one that I really rate up there was set up with the Kondo (the only SET based system of the 4, and one brand electronic chain). Also, the top two of those 4 were Sigma Vector, while the other two, the older MAAT, is slightly bigger and D’Appolito, and non-paper mid. The Vector is paper mid.

So, it is just not bigness. The Sigma has high efficiency and flat impedance (claimed 102db and flat 8 ohm)

Maybe what Ron liked in PBN was coherence, dynamic range, the fact that drivers were well matched, instead of simply saying it did great because of size of drivers. I haven’t negated the value of size of drivers. The dual FLH I like are two 15 inchers or 18 inchers. But I do not like Cessaro more than them just because it is bigger and taller. In fact the tall size makes the Gammas less coherent. I do think Sasha 2 is a better speaker than Alexia 1 or the XVX or the various Alexandria. Possibly because coherence is the Wilson weak point and the Sasha 2 size is their ideal manageable. I am saying there are other things to such simplistic viewpoints as bigger can only scale better and smaller cannot. Or that 45s are better than 33s, or even that 45s are good. Most are crap

Not everyone is comfortable with a paradigm shift

And that is a weak point. Why should people stick to a paradigm if confronted with a better alternative? Especially as an active audiophile. I am not referring to those who just bought an early system and play some music while not caring much for the nuances of the hobby.

 

[bonzo75]

Any audiophile who starts off in London today, will get exposed mainly to KEF, Naim, Linn, then B&W, Wilson, Focal types. Small probability of Maggies and MLs. These will be the main shops. With audiophile music and recordings.

 

[morricab]

I already mentioned in an earlier post to Ron that the points in the opening post are conclusions I reached in the middle of the journey that I moved on from.


I did not say they cannot be true at times. The Sigma MAAT that you mentioned, I heard 4 of those systems, the one that I really rate up there was set up with the Kondo (the only SET based system of the 4, and one brand electronic chain). Also, the top two of those 4 were Sigma Vector, while the other two, the older MAAT, is slightly bigger and D’Appolito, and non-paper mid. The Vector is paper mid.

So, it is just not bigness. The Sigma has high efficiency and flat impedance (claimed 102db and flat 8 ohm)

Maybe what Ron liked in PBN was coherence, dynamic range, the fact that drivers were well matched, instead of simply saying it did great because of size of drivers. I haven’t negated the value of size of drivers. The dual FLH I like are two 15 inchers or 18 inchers. But I do not like Cessaro more than them just because it is bigger and taller. In fact the tall size makes the Gammas less coherent. I do think Sasha 2 is a better speaker than Alexia 1 or the XVX or the various Alexandria. Possibly because coherence is the Wilson weak point and the Sasha 2 size is their ideal manageable. I am saying there are other things to such simplistic viewpoints as bigger can only scale better and smaller cannot. Or that 45s are better than 33s, or even that 45s are good. Most are crap



And that is a weak point. Why should people stick to a paradigm if confronted with a better alternative? Especially as an active audiophile. I am not referring to those who just bought an early system and play some music while not caring much for the nuances of the hobby.

Yes, but you are taking personal experiences and generalizing them to at least most audiophiles. IMO, this is purely anecdotal and not worthy of a generalized comment beyond, "Some people stay in the same lane they started in." There are enough counter examples that render your generalization nearly meaningless.

You did not say explicitly it can't be true but you strongly implied by the negative connotations around your NL that it is not a good route. The specifics of the speaker types are not relevant to the discussion...the point is that there are examples that are contra to your generalization.

In general (here's that word again), the bigger speakers in a line are A) more sensitive and easier to drive than their smaller brethren, B) will produce a large scale and work better with large scale music than their smaller brethren. So, it makes some logical sense to progress in that direction when space/money/WAF allows. The same is likely true in other paradigms (larger horns, larger panels).

All the blah blah about specific speakers is irrelevant.

Who is saying that 45s are universally better than 33s? You keep saying this like a mantra but your example rings hollow.

There are lots of reasons why someone will stick with what they know. 1) They actually think it sounds better...your opinion notwithstanding, 2) They don't have the budget or the desire to make the spend to change course...even if they clearly hear the advantages. 3) They don't have the space for a different technology (going from smaller box speakers to a rather large horn or planar speaker) or the WAF prevents it. 4) They don't care as passionately about the change to make the investment as you would. 5) They perceive the advantages but also perceive disadvantages and decide on balance not to change.

Again, it seems to be more about you and nothing general can really be gleaned from it other than the main purchase of hifi is still box/cone/dome speakers with SS amplification and most don't go to something else. You generally think this is not the highest potential and therefore cannot understand how everyone doesn't optimize as you would, given sufficient experience. This is totally disregarding A) Many people with the kind of systems you think of as NL ARE experienced and have heard planars, horns, SETs, etc. While I tend to agree with you that there are better paths I cannot say that many of them are not experienced. B) The alternative points I made above about why someone doesn't make the shift.

 

[bonzo75]

Yes, but you are taking personal experiences and generalizing them to at least most audiophiles. IMO, this is purely anecdotal and not worthy of a generalized comment beyond, "Some people stay in the same lane they started in." There are enough counter examples that render your generalization nearly meaningless.

You did not say explicitly it can't be true but you strongly implied by the negative connotations around your NL that it is not a good route. The specifics of the speaker types are not relevant to the discussion...the point is that there are examples that are contra to your generalization.

In general (here's that word again), the bigger speakers in a line are A) more sensitive and easier to drive than their smaller brethren, B) will produce a large scale and work better with large scale music than their smaller brethren. So, it makes some logical sense to progress in that direction when space/money/WAF allows. The same is likely true in other paradigms (larger horns, larger panels).

All the blah blah about specific speakers is irrelevant.

Who is saying that 45s are universally better than 33s? You keep saying this like a mantra but your example rings hollow.

There are lots of reasons why someone will stick with what they know. 1) They actually think it sounds better...your opinion notwithstanding, 2) They don't have the budget or the desire to make the spend to change course...even if they clearly hear the advantages. 3) They don't have the space for a different technology (going from smaller box speakers to a rather large horn or planar speaker) or the WAF prevents it. 4) They don't care as passionately about the change to make the investment as you would. 5) They perceive the advantages but also perceive disadvantages and decide on balance not to change.

Again, it seems to be more about you and nothing general can really be gleaned from it other than the main purchase of hifi is still box/cone/dome speakers with SS amplification and most don't go to something else. You generally think this is not the highest potential and therefore cannot understand how everyone doesn't optimize as you would, given sufficient experience. This is totally disregarding A) Many people with the kind of systems you think of as NL ARE experienced and have heard planars, horns, SETs, etc. While I tend to agree with you that there are better paths I cannot say that many of them are experienced. B) The alternative points I made above about why someone doesn't make the shift.

All the points mentioned in the OP, are points I have recently argued online or offline with other audiophiles.

In fact Ron himself said in his post he recognized some of them being with him.

The WUOTS up thread has some of those points. The XVX being great assumption is partly based on its large size (as are the repeated examples of some of this size speakers being the ultimate, even though people would have heard none on the list)

45s being good, just had that very recently

I disagree bigger speakers will usually work better. This will not be the case if the size adds incoherence, or more ways (e.g. 5 over 3 leading to more complexity in crossover), room acoustics, etc. Also you used the phrase “better than their brethren”. Now, for example, Cessaro’s bigger speakers are indeed better than their smaller ones, but at the same time, the largeness makes them less good than other non-Cessaro smaller ones. Either way, I think big is better is NL

Regarding why people do not change, you have cited non-sonic reasons (WAF, space, budgets, etc). Let’s separate sonic decisions. It is even worse if someone starts accepting his non-sonic limitations to justify his sonic rational. He should simply say my limitations allow me X, but if I could I would have Y, rather justify how sonically great X is (which does happen). I do respect the ones on the forum who ended up with X and say if they knew what they knew now they would have Z

 

[morricab]

All the points mentioned in the OP, are points I have recently argued online or offline with other audiophiles.

In fact Ron himself said in his post he recognized some of them being with him.

The WUOTS up thread has some of those points. The XVX being great assumption is partly based on its large size.

45s being good, just had that very recently

I disagree bigger speakers will usually work better. This will not be the case if the size adds incoherence, or more ways (e.g. 5 over 3 leading to more complexity in crossover), room acoustics, etc. Also used the phrase “their brethren”. Now, for example, Cessaro’s bigger speakers are indeed better than their smaller ones, but at the same time, the largeness makes them less good than other non-Cessaro smaller ones. Either way, I think big is better is NL

Regarding why people do not change, you have cited non-sonic reasons (WAF, space, budgets, etc). Let’s separate sonic decisions. It is even worse if someone starts accepting his non-sonic limitations to justify his sonic rational. He should simply say my limitations allow me X, but if I could I would have Y, rather justify how sonically great X is (which does happen)

What do I care if you have mentioned points before or argued with other on or offline...again irrelevant to the generality you are trying to make.

Again, doesn't matter what Ron thinks...it is YOUR generality that we are discussing.

Again, so what if the WUOTS up thread has these points or not...irrelevant. Again, irrelevant to mention a specific speaker...and you don't know that its great assumption (you mean reputation?) is based on large size. That is your presumption...just because it is big and expensive.

Again, irrelevant about the discussion...you are the one saying that NL think 45s are inherently better than 33s (in fact technically they are but only if we are taking the same mastering of the same recording and cutting them on the two different disks...there are too many other factors that affect LP SQ.)

I didn't say they work better. I said they are generally more sensitive (they are) and therefore easier to drive. The rest of your blah blah I can ignore because it is based on your strawman that I said bigger speakers work better, which I did not say.

Yes, I noted non-sonic and sonic reasons. Both are very important for why many people don't change lanes. People often conflate these things together, which tells me you don't understand human psychology very well. People also rarely tell you the truth. That doesn't mean non-sonic reasons are less valid to most people...they are only not valid to YOU. I have a lot of friends that are constrained by their domestic situation...I am also one. Before I was married I had 8 foot tall electrostats (3 pairs!) and 4 box systems (Infinity IRS Beta and two pairs of Acoustats...the biggest acting as subwoofers for the smaller ones).

 

[spiritofmusic]

I wonder if Ked also subscribes to a mainly horns/SETs/vinyl forum, maybe a big part DIY, and all those forum members had started with these topologies and had not moved onto box spkrs, SS, digital, or pricier versions of the same stuff (ie DIY Altec to AG or Cessaro, 124 or 301 to SME), if he'd also be right now be posting his Noob Linearity 2.0 thread to promote his views that they'd been stuck in the same rut they were in when they first got their first horn SETs vinyl rigs, and why they're still making naive Noob errors, and hadn't progressed anywhere more "truthful" or "realistic"?

All I can say is that having heard a number of really good, and in one case, absolutely exemplary, horn SET vinyl based systems, another excellent horn SS vinyl, a very consistent horn SET digital, and a number of poor ones, despite the other worldly goodness of the best one, I still prefer the better all rounders in the box SET vinyl division, they do more things right, at a more consistent level, and I'm happy to reject horns as a formal decision.
And my aim is to bridge the gap between my box SETs vinyl setup to the superlative one I've heard.

 

[bonzo75]

I wonder if Ked also subscribes to a mainly horns/SETs/vinyl forum, maybe a big part DIY, and all those forum members had started with these topologies and had not moved onto box spkrs, SS, digital, or pricier versions of the same stuff (ie DIY Altec to AG or Cessaro, 124 or 301 to SME), if he'd also be right now be posting his Noob Linearity 2.0 thread to promote his views that they'd been stuck in the same rut they were in when they first got their first horn SETs vinyl rigs, and why they're still making naive Noob errors, and hadn't progressed anywhere more "truthful" or "realistic"?

All I can say is that having heard a number of really good, and in one case, absolutely exemplary, horn SET vinyl based systems, another excellent horn SS vinyl, a very consistent horn SET digital, and a number of poor ones, despite the other worldly goodness of the best one, I still prefer the better all rounders in the box SET vinyl division, they do more things right, at a more consistent level, and I'm happy to reject horns as a formal decision.
And my aim is to bridge the gap between my box SETs vinyl setup to the superlative one I've heard.

You definitely are not noob linear Marc. You have learned so much about tweaks and cables from your early days.