Toward a Theory To Increase Mutual Understanding and Predictability

[caesar]

Hey Ron,

As a contrarian thought, don't you think your categories divide people rather than bring better mutual understanding? How many people would actually say that they prefer a colored sound, as in your #3? Most people use their imagination and select gear that tickles the imagination of their references. So to them, they are perceiving something real to them (your #1), but in reality it all is something they enjoy (a version of your #3).

So everyone can claim that their favorite piece of gear "disappears" and "sounds like music" while something they don't like sticks out because of its gross coloration and just makes "hifi sounds". On the extremes, just think of a guy listening to a magico q5 with spectral vs. a guy listening to a horn with a set: each guy thinks theirs is "natural"/ "real" and the other's is badly "colored". Obviously, the same applies to any gear combination...the reality is that a magico or a wilson or an avantgarde will disappear to the respective fans but exhibit a gross coloration to those who don't like it.

Isn't the ultimate answer to your real concern is to have forum members respect each other as human beings? I am not suggesting a political correctness or a "canadian apologizing for apologizing" that would kill the site. But if some statement in a post is not clear, why not simply ask a clarifying questions in a polite way and ultimately respectfully agree to disagree?

 

[caesar]

I also should add that these categories come from TAS's "Sterile" Jon Valin. To him they represent marketing segments to increase readership and to give cover to analytic reviewers like Harley and himself. They are assigned by an outsider. Again, who would purposely listen to a system that sounds colored to them?

 

[Ron Resnick]

Hey Ron,

As a contrarian thought, don't you think your categories divide people rather than bring better mutual understanding? How many people would actually say that they prefer a colored sound, as in your #3? Most people use their imagination and select gear that tickles the imagination of their references. So to them, they are perceiving something real to them (your #1), but in reality it all is something they enjoy (a version of your #3).

So everyone can claim that their favorite piece of gear "disappears" and "sounds like music" while something they don't like sticks out because of its gross coloration and just makes "hifi sounds". On the extremes, just think of a guy listening to a magico q5 with spectral vs. a guy listening to a horn with a set: each guy thinks theirs is "natural"/ "real" and the other's is badly "colored". Obviously, the same applies to any gear combination...the reality is that a magico or a wilson or an avantgarde will disappear to the respective fans but exhibit a gross coloration to those who don't like it.

Isn't the ultimate answer to your real concern is to have forum members respect each other as human beings? I am not suggesting a political correctness or a "canadian apologizing for apologizing" that would kill the site. But if some statement in a post is not clear, why not simply ask a clarifying questions in a polite way and ultimately respectfully agree to disagree?

Dear caesar,

No, I do not think the categories "divide" people. In my conception of the objectives they are not mutually exclusive.

No one who subscribes to Objective 3 would declare that he/she prefers a "colored" sound, so I think this is a red herring.

I agree with you that while we may subscribe to Objective 1 or Objective 2, and believe that that is the goal for which we are striving, the cold reality may be that all we are doing is achieving Objective 3.

Mutual respect among posters is always desired.

 

[Ron Party]

Hey Ron,

As a contrarian thought, don't you think your categories divide people rather than bring better mutual understanding? How many people would actually say that they prefer a colored sound, as in your #3? Most people use their imagination and select gear that tickles the imagination of their references. So to them, they are perceiving something real to them (your #1), but in reality it all is something they enjoy (a version of your #3).

So everyone can claim that their favorite piece of gear "disappears" and "sounds like music" while something they don't like sticks out because of its gross coloration and just makes "hifi sounds". On the extremes, just think of a guy listening to a magico q5 with spectral vs. a guy listening to a horn with a set: each guy thinks theirs is "natural"/ "real" and the other's is badly "colored". Obviously, the same applies to any gear combination...the reality is that a magico or a wilson or an avantgarde will disappear to the respective fans but exhibit a gross coloration to those who don't like it.

Isn't the ultimate answer to your real concern is to have forum members respect each other as human beings? I am not suggesting a political correctness or a "canadian apologizing for apologizing" that would kill the site. But if some statement in a post is not clear, why not simply ask a clarifying questions in a polite way and ultimately respectfully agree to disagree?

Great post, the fundamentals of which sadly are too oft forgotten or in the exercise of arrogance and/or intellectual dishonesty are casually dismissed. Heaven help the one who challenges a person guilty of such, for sometimes the challenger and not the guilty are outcast. Flavor choices are, by definition, just that. There is no one size fits all, no matter how much one might wish to huff and puff and shout his/her version of real, natural, blah, blah, blah, is the truth. Respect, as Caesar so rightfully emphasized, requires honesty and tolerance.

Honesty and tolerance, if exercised, would unequivocally demonstrate the original 3 categories as stated are neither mutually exclusive nor totally exhaustive. For example, the number 2 category is fundamentally flawed in its stated language since it only exists as a subset in the world of *masters*.

Does one want to stop dividing people? Truthfully? Then stop categorizing. For example, when a new album comes out and you decide to post about it, don't post anything about the format. Just post about the music. I know, it may be difficult rewiring your neural pathways but try it, maybe for the first time in your audiophile life. It's liberating. Vinyl, CD, SACD, blah, blah, blah. All categories. All flavor choices. There is a more, much more, peaceful way.

 

[Folsom]

Dear caesar,

No, I do not think the categories "divide" people. In my conception of the objectives they are not mutually exclusive.

No one who subscribes to Objective 3 would declare that he/she prefers a "colored" sound, so I think this is a red herring.

I agree with you that while we may subscribe to Objective 1 or Objective 2, and believe that that is the goal for which we are striving, the cold reality may be that all we are doing is achieving Objective 3.

Mutual respect among posters is always desired.

"Colored" is a bad word that I think some of us use for different things. Personally I don't use it hardly ever. It's a broad sweeping statement so it's not always useful except to discount something due to a flaw. But it is fair to say 1 & 3 are ok with manipulation; and to someone a form of that may incur their description of coloration but I think that would be less common. My apologies if I used the word to easily, earlier, to despite 1 & 3 preferences.

Are people being divided? I think the opposite will be true because as people can define what they're seeking better then we can share experiences/information that's pertinent to their objectives. People will be in more agreement with each other, for instances if someone likes something I'd attribute to 3 then I can agree with them on a the factor involved because I know it does what goals they have, despite me being say a 1 or 2 who doesn't share the goal. I'm not sure we have to use the numbers, but they are an exercise in understanding where our values are at so we can communicate those as we go about our way.

 

[ddk]

Well demos were classical, but both can do rock and electronic considerably well. I did play some rock on both.

I like to think my regular concert benchmarks (important to note not reset by a flawed domestic system), have contributed in finding something that helps me suspend disbelief by thinking this is closest to classical. Same explanation goes for analog, i started liking analog after I sold off my speakers, because the more concerts I went to, the more real analog sounded compared to the digital I was hearing at auditions, and realism was not being reset with what I have at home.

As for Apogees vs horns, a bit of choice will be real estate and money considerations. And I have no delusions of grandeur about building one like Mike, so that's out.

Not everyone but many horn owners I know today started off with Apogees or other panels with a brief stop with dynamic speakers and then jumped on to horns for good. You've laid out your eventual path to horns with the Apogees, it's a matter of how fast you want to get there now !

david

 

[bonzo75]

Not everyone but many horn owners I know today started off with Apogees or other panels with a brief stop with dynamic speakers and then jumped on to horns for good. You've laid out your eventual path to horns with the Apogees, it's a matter of how fast you want to get there now !

david

It's the reverse too, David...I know a lot of Apogee owners, who will have nothing else, and are least dissatisfied with the bass or crossover or tone like some horn owners. Unfortunately they don't hang out on forums much. Either way, it's Apogees, horns, or none.

 

[ddk]

It's the reverse too, David...I know a lot of Apogee owners, who will have nothing else, and are least dissatisfied with the bass or crossover or tone like some horn owners. Unfortunately they don't hang out on forums much. Either way, it's Apogees, horns, or none.

Both good choices when done right Ked. As for "none" some days I get very close to it and wonder about the sanity of it all, life is short

david

 

[bonzo75]

Both good choices when done right Ked. As for "none" some days I get very close to it and wonder about the sanity of it all, life is short

david

Let me know if you decide to give away some stuff

 

[morricab]

Not everyone but many horn owners I know today started off with Apogees or other panels with a brief stop with dynamic speakers and then jumped on to horns for good. You've laid out your eventual path to horns with the Apogees, it's a matter of how fast you want to get there now !

david

That would be me, more or less. The main difference is that I still love the sound of panels, both ribbons and electrostats but perhaps more really good, big stats. I like my horns and don't see changing them but I could imagine having a panel system again.

 

[microstrip]

It's the reverse too, David...I know a lot of Apogee owners, who will have nothing else, and are least dissatisfied with the bass or crossover or tone like some horn owners. Unfortunately they don't hang out on forums much. Either way, it's Apogees, horns, or none.

I have to say I feel I could be happy with any of them. Magnetic panels, ribbons, electrostatics, dynamic speakers, horns. Give me the resources and time, I feel I will be happy to build a system around any of those types and listen to my music with them. But yes, I am appreciating a lot the current speakers!

 

[853guy]

I have to say I feel I could be happy with any of them. Magnetic panels, ribbons, electrostatics, dynamic speakers, horns. Give me the resources and time, I feel I will be happy to build a system around any of those types and listen to my music with them. But yes, I am appreciating a lot the current speakers!

My plan?

A main vinyl/digital/tape rig based around SETs and horns, with additional systems (family room, office) based around panels and dynamics.

This is, however, a lot like my plan to be ripped in my abs and have the cardio of my twenty-year old self. In other words, we'll see how that pans out.

 

[morricab]

The truth of the matter is that other than someone who has literally purchased their system based only on measurements, we are all to one degree or another, skating along with #3. Now, how close one gets to #1 really depends on the individual and their ability (and yes it is an ability) to take what they hear and translate this into a world class system that is capable of making relatively uncolored and realistic sound. Very FEW systems I have heard even remotely get close to #1, despite claimed aspirations.

As for #2, well those misguided souls are busy trying to fool themselves that their "perfect" measuring gear is somehow remotely sounding like music. But they will hammer the measurements onto anyone who will listen to them but once their systems are heard...quickly dismissed by sophisticated listeners.

So, most audiophiles are rattling around either in #2 or #3, with a few of those in #3 with better hearing/interpretation ability pushing closer to #1. Those in #2 are relying on the ultimate appeal to authority, measurements without interpretation, to argue their case rather than the actual sound. It is kind of like trying to select a wine based on the alcohol content.

The divide comes because most people who have invested heavily in this hobby want to be known, at least to some degree, as an "expert" and that their system is "correct", when really it is a flavoring of their biases because most aren't able to take what they hear live (assuming they have a clue about live, unamplified, music in the first place) and apply that towards getting realism in their hifi. So, people argue over their systems and their approaches, each thinking they have the high ground in the discussion.

There is a way forward with psychoacoustics, but again it is a statistical approach that will still not satisfy everyone. You will build a system that is closer to #1 if you try to apply what psychoacoustics suggests should give purer sound, perceptually if not absolutely.

 

[bonzo75]

I think the question should be what is your objective? Is your objective 1 or similar, or is it 3. The fact that you might not have competed your journey is another matter

 

[ddk]

That would be me, more or less. The main difference is that I still love the sound of panels, both ribbons and electrostats but perhaps more really good, big stats. I like my horns and don't see changing them but I could imagine having a panel system again.

No going back for me, I know I reached the pinnacle of panel based systems before switching over. I get to hear some of the best ss amps regularly and they just don't satisfy like a good SET so I'll have to stay with horns and high sensitivity dynamic boxes which there are some excellent ones out there. I'm lucky getting into vintage horns from the start and don't have to compromise with the bass and integration issues as reported by many here.

david

 

[ddk]

I have to say I feel I could be happy with any of them. Magnetic panels, ribbons, electrostatics, dynamic speakers, horns. Give me the resources and time, I feel I will be happy to build a system around any of those types and listen to my music with them. But yes, I am appreciating a lot the current speakers!

For me the decision starts with the electronics you were limited by your previous Soundlabs, the XLF has freed you up to choose any type of amplification that you want!

david

 

[microstrip]

For me the decision starts with the electronics you were limited by your previous Soundlabs, the XLF has freed you up to choose any type of amplification that you want!

david

Yes, it is true ...

 

[PeterA]

No going back for me, I know I reached the pinnacle of panel based systems before switching over. I get to hear some of the best ss amps regularly and they just don't satisfy like a good SET so I'll have to stay with horns and high sensitivity dynamic boxes which there are some excellent ones out there. I'm lucky getting into vintage horns from the start and don't have to compromise with the bass and integration issues as reported by many here.

david

David, Have you heard the Magico Ultimate horn speakers? A member hear bought a pair and was trying to find the right amps that would not sound noisy because of the extreme sensitivity, but I have not read anything for a while. I think he was considering low power SS amps because of the low noise floor. I'm curious what you think about that approach.

 

[bonzo75]

David, Have you heard the Magico Ultimate horn speakers? A member hear bought a pair and was trying to find the right amps that would not sound noisy because of the extreme sensitivity, but I have not read anything for a while. I think he was considering low power SS amps because of the low noise floor. I'm curious what you think about that approach.

Both trios and Yamamuras use SS amps.

 

[mullard88]

The Magico Ultimate is probably in its third or fourth generation now. I heard the second generation several times over a period of two years. Amplification used was either Lamm M1.2 Reference or Lamm ML3 Signature.