2.1 speaker system
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: Tech Talk
Forum Description: Discuss musical instruments, equipment, hi-fi, speakers, vinyl, gadgets,etc.
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19612
Printed Date: November 24 2024 at 15:26
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 2.1 speaker system
Posted By: limeyrob
Subject: 2.1 speaker system
Date Posted: February 28 2006 at 15:59
|
Can I have your advice please. I am thinking of changing my speakers in the lounge (coming under a lot of pressure from the missus to get some smaller ones). Anyway I have a pair of Rogers LS6a which I have to say are quite big, but produce a superb base. I know I'll have to compromise but I was looking at a 2.1 system. The speakers I had a quick listen to in the shop was a pair of Linn Classic Unik (which can be wall mounted). They were too bright for me and needed a bit of whoomph so I thought about a subwoofer. The B&W PV1 looks a meaty one and it can be powered by my Audiolab 8000A amp. Has anyone had any experience in using a 2.1 setup as their main system. I am listening to some Altec Lansing's through my PC. They are OK for PC use but I think I need something extra for the lounge. I don't think I'm in the market for a full 5.1 upgrade as I don't want to turn the lounge into a home cinema area yet Any suggestions gratefully received. Thanks |
Replies:
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 07:54
|
Adding a good sub (minimum 38cm) on a good system produces a huge inprovment on image, dynamic, matter, low, high, everything.
Here's a cheap but highly musical one: Magnat Omega 380 
PS: forget Rogers, it's crap. |
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 08:18
|
I'm certainly no expert on this but I bought a Creative 2.1 system for 30 Euros and it sounds really great IMO. OliverStoned would probably have an apoplexy if he heard it but it's good for me. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10"> 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 09:08
|
At least it's not a 5.1!
Let's dream on serious gear (i currently want to buy extraordinary 1000/piece "Transparent Super" power cables ): 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 09:24
|
Just for the eyes' pleasure:
Top canadians tube amps, (i think there are now discontinued cause too expensive.) Anyway it's excellent and even better than Conrad Johnson  
|
Posted By: Bob Greece
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 09:34
|
What's wrong with 5.1 systems? 1000 Euros for cables? You get paid too much in France. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/BobGreece/?chartstyle=basicrt10">
|
oliverstoned wrote:Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 09:45
|
In a pure audio set up, 5.1 provides a far less good image (soundstage) than a good stereo or 2.1 system.
I didn't said that i can afford these cables. But i'm ready to sacrifice all to get some (on second hand, you can het one for about 500.) The improvment is incredible and worth the price. If you must put only one, you put it on the preamp. It makes: boom!! A second on the source. A third on the amp, etc... And eventually you put it on every devices and it makes...BOOOOM!!! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 10:43
I tried 2.1 in the end I reverted back to 2 because if the two speakers are top quality the sub woofer (in my case) only created less clarity , so I stick with two very nice speakers 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 11:02
|
Bad sub (featuring a less than 38cm loudspeaker) and/or bad setted.
But with a good sub, it's always better (on good records of course) as it enhances dynamic, image, etc..even with very high end speakers cause it enables to explore extreme low freq. Another fantastic and surprising effect is that it enhances highs too. |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 11:27
Wow, oliverstoned, you give "audiophile" new meaning! 
------------- Pure Brilliance: 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 11:33
|
Should i take it as a compliment?
Audiophile was a pejorative word maybe? |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 11:56
No, not meant in the pejorative. Hey, we all have our fetishes! Mine would be my CD collection and ever-growing musical equipment collection. I'm not one to criticise!  ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 11:58
|
I can recommend the Logitech speaker sets ... but why not buy a 5.1 set? They're not much more expensive, and you can always use them without the rear speakers and add them later. Low budget PC speakers (around $80), but still MUCH better than any other PC speaker set that I know:
http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/EN,CRID=2177,ConTENTID=9067"> Medium Budget ($200): http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/EN,CRID=2177,ConTENTID=9586"> Big budget ($500): http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/products/details/US/EN,CRID=2177,ConTENTID=10928"> ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to: 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 12:12
| Thanks Mike for showing what's to avoid: false speakers and a false sub... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 12:28
|
You forgot to add "in my opinion". Edit: By the way, what do you mean by "false" sub? You keep talking about speaker diameters like 38cm being mandatory for good bass reproduction ... that's utter nonsense. May I remind you of the famous 2x12/4x10 bass cabinets? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 12:44
What's even more laughable is that these are POWER cables. What a joke ... sorry, but any engineer would literaly roll on the floor laughing his ass off when he heard about that. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Tony R
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 14:35
|
I have a Creative Labs 6.1 Speaker package and I'm very happy with them. They are attached to my Audigy2 Platinum soundcard and more than serve their purpose with both music and movies. Anyone who pays 1000 for a power cable needs their head testing (IMO The ultimate aim of high end HiFi claims be to reproduce as faithfully as possible what the Sound Engineer could hear,however if you do not use the same equipment as him then you are unlikely to get exactly the same sound image...whether you spend more or less is relatively irrelevant. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 15:16
|
These cables features filtering boxes which play the same role than power filter and it results in a huge improvment in term of soundstage, dynamic, remove a lot of harshness...
To sum up, a huge improvment on all criterias. Same for interconnect cables, all very high end cables features these kind of boxes. Those who don't hear the difference need their ears to be checked. (we made the test to my father last weekend -who was quite septikal at first- and he was amazed by the result. Now he'd like to get some for his own system, but gave up because of the price and will stay on cheaper cables). Do you really believe that i'm fool enough to spent 500 on a cable just because it's expensive? And know that the equipment we use is sometimes even better than what they use in studio (I.E tube amps versus solid state one). A Conrad Johson amp is far more musical (it doesn't mean that it's less acuurate, it's far more in the highs) than any studio solid sate amp used for monitoring. The CD player i use is up to what they use for radio broacast (they use Studer integrated CD players most of the time, while we use separate drive/converter far better). PS: Sorry Mike to forget the "IMO", that was not kind of me. High end cables: 
This studio engineer uses Transparent cables 
Bob Ludwig, an absolute reference in rock mastering (this guy manages to make digital musical) uses Transparent cables for its own needs. 
Technical explanations (from Transparent cables website): "You may not realize how much low-level noise is robbing your system of its potential -- until you hear your components linked with Transparent. If the cables and power conditioning products in your music and film system are not Transparent, then every signal path is like an antenna to unwanted noise. All Transparent cables and power conditioning products reject noise. Noise at any point in the signal chain inhibits the ability of your music or film system to reveal all the subtle nuances of texture, tone, color, body, dimension, and contrast that are encoded in your favorite music and film program materials. These subtle nuances are the critical elements that help us to suspend our belief that we are only listening to or viewing electronic signals. They are the critical elements that bring our listening and viewing experiences to life. oused within those distinctive "black boxes" on our audio cable are special passive electrical networks that reject noise. The networks also tune that specific length and type of cable to provide exactly the right balance of electrical properties for the use of the cable within the music or film system. Transparent video and digital cables also reject noise, but they do so without networks. Because of the ultra-high frequency transmission required by digital and video cables, precision manufacturing and termination techniques can ensure that these types of cables have the correct balance of electrical properties without the use of networks. Transparent video and digital cables reject noise through proprietary materials, shielding, and termination techniques. Transparent power products reject noise through networks and shielding techniques. The more we study the effects of dirty power on music and pictures, the more we appreciate what clean power can do for every home system. ransparent designs start in a well equipped test laboratory, where an important 35% of each product's development takes place. The testing allows us to calibrate each cable and length to achieve theoretically ideal characteristics for its application. This calibration improves the performance of our products in a number of ways. The primary aim of our design process is to remove noise from the signal path. Our commitment to create uniform behavior in our cables means a lot of painstaking work, but the results make it worthwhile. For each model of Transparent Cable that requires a network, we design a specific filter for each length of cable that we offer in that model. If 6 lengths are offered in a given model, then we design 6 individual filters to keep response uniform. Each cable is calibrated to control high frequency roll-off behavior, group delay characteristics, resonance, and impedance behavior into a wide range of its intended audio load conditions. However, laboratory test equipment can not adequately predict how a cable and its network will really behave on the wide range of audio and video components that are available today. Therefore, the ultimate refinement of all Transparent cable and power conditioning designs takes place in our music and film studio where we can directly experience how our designs work with other components. This unique studio is our most important design tool. The engineering and architectural features of the room allow us to hear the merits of our products in conjunction with other components without the room contributing to the sonic presentation." |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 15:24
|
Well, I'm tempted to (but will not) anwer that question. Sorry, I can't resist to post a link to this again: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf - http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf It's foolish to believe that the cables that you showed above can do any better than simple balanced audio cables. Noise is cancelled out by a cheap 5 cable as well as by a 5000 cable.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 15:25
Ooooh, this is getting good! 
------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 15:36
|
Always the same article by jealous people:
Cables don't works Digital works better than analog Tube doesn't works Pfff...no comment All i can tell you is that all you need is to plug the cable (on a good system of course)and listen 10 seconds to understand. I would not tell it if it was not true. There are even more expensive and better cables. There's no limit in the absolute's quest. I return to long hours of musical ecstasy and let you to your prog metal, your computer and your sets of plastic boxes... Have a good night to all and a good day for the others. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 15:45
|
What nonsense. Prog Metal? What has that to do with speakers? Computer? What has that to do with speakers? Plastic boxes? What has that to do with my Logitech speakers? And even IF they were made entirely of plastic, what has that to do with the sound? It's sad that some people still think that the better some equipment looks, the better it sounds. And the more natural the components are (wood, chromium/gold) the better it sounds. Nonsense. Just test the equipment in real life situations, and if it sounds good, then it IS good. Plastic or not, digital or not, unexpensive or not. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 16:43
|
I won't officially weigh in on this debate, but to give you an idea of which side I might take... in recent years I went from this guitar amp:  to this one:  |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 17:00
|
^ a digital amp disguised as an analog tube amp! BTW: This is my current amp ( or amp simulator/preamp if you will):
Kind of like the best of both worlds (digital/analog)! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: GoldenSpiral
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 18:47
|
It has always been my opinion that audiophile equipment is prohibitively expensive and often much much more expensive than it is worth. I would consider myself an audiophile, except that my stereo, while large, is mostly cheap and second-hand components. now, on to the cables. It is true that power cables add a certain amount of low-level noise into the system, which can, conceivably, interfere with overall sound reproduction. however, this is only really important in areas where the power supply (i.e. what comes to your house from your neighborhood grid) is dirty and full of noise. Unless you have known harmonics in your supply, paying out the arse for expensive cables really isnt worth it IMO. but hey, if you notice a difference and youre willing to pay, i am in no position to contradict. ------------- http://www.myspace.com/altaic" rel="nofollow - http://www.myspace.com/altaic ALTAIC "Oceans Down You'll Lie" coming soon |
Posted By: Empathy
Date Posted: March 10 2006 at 21:18
I've heard good things about that box. It's got a tube in it, so it MUST be good! ------------- Pure Brilliance:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 03:32
The noise is also generated by atmospheric pollution (i mean the pollution generated by all electric devices of the house). Al devices are polluted themselves. I'm not the only one to notice a huge difference. I talk "a posteriori", while Mike and you talk "a priori". In Mike's article, they always talk about the importance of listening tests. This is the only point that i agree. I don't know how they made their tests to get such conclusions that : -Digital is better than analog -Cables don't work -Tubes are not better than solid state We do listening tests all the time: We try with A cable. We replace A cable by B cable. If the difference is not obvious, we'll perform blind test. But most of the time, we don't need. Tony was shocked that we're are abble to spend 500 or 1000 for a power cable (or interconnect, it's the same) The people ready to invest such amount of money in a power cable are the same abble to invest 15 000, 30 000 or more for the whole system. While the average guy spends 15 000 or more into his new car, we prefer invest it into our first passion: music and its reprodution. Now i can't understand that you have doubts about a 1000 cable efficiency. That's hard to believe at first. Of course, everything must stay proportionated, and to invest 1000 into a power cable suppose to have a very transparent system, with, let's say, a 5000 preamp. It would have no sense to invest so much into cable and have an entry level preamp at the same time, for example. There are also cheap power cables which works (like the 50 ones i use currently). There are much traps in hifi, i can quote you many so-called high ends very expensive products acclaimed by some critics, but which actually doesn't works; Beside that, you have the real good produts which allow you to reach the musical nirvana. Things like that: 
And as you like digital, here's some good: Teac drive 
Goldmund converter 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 04:47
|
That's not true. The kind of "noise" that we are talking about here is audible - in case that it exists. If I place my cellphone near some components (amp, speakers, speaker wires) of my system and I receive a call or the phone simply exchanges control messages with the station ... then I hear it. The point is: I don't hear any ground noise on my system ... no harmonics or anything. Even the washing machine which is in the room next to my system doesn't result in anything audible on my system, even when I turn the volume know WAY up. Why should I pay gargantuous amounts of money to remove noise from my system which I can't even hear in the first place? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 05:53
|
"The point is: I don't hear any ground noise on my system ... no harmonics or anything. Even the washing machine which is in the room next to my system doesn't result in anything audible on my system, even when I turn the volume know WAY up."
Hι hι, you made the experiment... It's because your system is not transparent... And that's a paradox: cause more your system is transparent, more you hear all!! Including things that degrade, such as unpure power. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 06:03
I have never said that you need to pay billions and that you must have 1000 cables , in order to have a musical system. The rule is very simple: a good system is made of only musical elements. All must be good. There are 1 000 000 system that sound like train stations, and i can compose a whole 1000 musical system which will be better!!! : http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6876&KW=budget - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6876&K W=budget ...but if you want the top, it's more expensive... Like for everything else! There are even more expensive power cables (2500) which explode the 1000 one i was alluding to! There's no limit in the absolute's quest... ---> Mike "Why should I pay gargantuous amounts of money to remove noise from my system which I can't even hear in the first place?" In your case, that would make no sense to put such a cable on your system. That would only reveal its weakness. The first step for you is to get a decent source, a good amp and a pair of speakers. You're far from needing power cables. But as soon as you have good elements, my advice is to link them with a complete "Qed" line for interconnects and "Eupen" power cables (45 per cable). |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 06:19
|
That's ridiculous. What you're saying is that a good hifi system is meant to pollute the source signal with static from the power line? hahaha. Maybe just don't inhale enough mushroom substances to understand that theory. I always thought that the amp is meant to amplify the source signal with as little change to it as possible. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 06:36
|
"I always thought that the amp is meant to amplify the source signal with as little change to it as possible."
That's it. And as a good tube amp in a good sytem is far more transparent in the highs, it reveals all. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 07:19
|
My washing machine is not a part of the signal. Even the best amp in the world can not "reveal" things that weren't even in the signal in the first place. Of course if your amp exposes its tubes like the one in your sig, it's obvious that it picks up all kinds of static interference. That's why sane amps have a metallic "cage" surrounding the circuitry. Edit: LOL ... so the amp manufacturers make amps that are more vulnerable to interference and sell that as "increased transparency" ... while in turn the cable manufacturers sell you cables with built in low pass filters that remove the high frequencies again. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 09:07
|
"My washing machine is not a part of the signal. Even the best amp in the world can not "reveal" things that weren't even in the signal in the first place."
Devices are polluting themselves electrically. And it simply degrade the sound. Do you contest it? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 11 2006 at 09:14
|
No. It's funny ... you're always modifying my statements so that they get a slightly different meaning. And you are combining your answer with new statements that are even more confusing than the previous ones: "Devices are polluting themselves" ... what is that supposed to mean? "Devices are polluting each other" would be something that I would agree with. But as I said, countermeasures can be taken against that - and devices like the one in your sig which expose their circuitry like that are simply more affected by electronic interference than others. "And it simply degrade the sound" ... yes/no. In case of the interference being in the audible frequency range, it simply results in a noise that you don't want to have in your signal ... but it leaves the rest of the signal completely unaffected. It "degrades" nothing. Reminds me of what I read yesterday on http://www.audioholics.com - www.audioholics.com . A very recommendable website! They are sort of in the middle between the "rationalists" and the "audiophile maniacs". ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 12 2006 at 03:15
|
I didn't expressed well myself.
So, the correct sentence should better be: "Devices are polluting each other" "and devices like the one in your sig which expose their circuitry like that are simply more affected by electronic interference than others." It's proper to tube amps. Indeed, it exists accessories which protect the tubes from pollution, like the metallic protections you see on some tubes of this Mc Intosh tube tuner MR71. 
ThEre are also accesories to put on tubes to prevent them from vibrations (see the little input tubes on this Jolida 302 (my amp)): 
So you somehow contest that power issues may affect the good working of a device. That's interesting. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 12 2006 at 03:59
|
Not at all. Where did I say that? What I'm saying is this: Power issues rarely ever affect the working issues of any modern amp (even low cost) so that the noise/pollution can actually be heard. This is not due to a lack of "transparency" in low cost amps which somehow filters out the noise or fails to reproduce it. It is simply due to the capabilities of the power supplies of the amps. The power supply converts the alternate current (ac) to a stable direct current (dc). In this process any instabilities are removed, except for some rare circumstances such as defective cables or devices in the same building, or trouble at the power plant. But these circumstances are VERY rare. It's certainly nonsense to spend huge amounts on cables and power supplies to filter out noise that you couldn't even hear in the first place.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 12 2006 at 04:35
|
Theory vs experience...
An example... http://stereophile.com/cables/1101nordost/ - http://stereophile.com/cables/1101nordost/ |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 12 2006 at 05:06
|
^ One Word: http://www.wordreference.com/definition/scam - Scam . at least from a scientific point of view. Sorry! If you really believe that $20,000 cables will make your system sound better ... go ahead. Read this 10 page article: http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/truthcablesinterconnects.php - http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/intercon nects/truthcablesinterconnects.php It is a very balanced article. The author is not just bashing the cable industry ... he is looking for proof of the ability of expensive cables to influence the sound ... and he finds some. But he is also coming to the conclusion that most of what some manufacturers of really expensive cables say is simply not holding up to objective testing. I really had to smile when I read his description of a test where people were supposed to tell the difference between cables. A really expensive audiophile system was set up and technicians showed the cables to the test subjects and then played something. Most people really thought that they heard a difference between the really cheap cables and the really expensive ones. The funny thing is: The technicians didn't really switch cables ... This shows that the human belief system is not rational at all. See this interesting article: http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html - http://www.csicop.org/si/9505/belief.html . Think about it: When a normal person (meaning: not a technical expert) goes to an audiophile store and a sales person shows a really expensive hifi system and talks that person into buying it ... can that person then be objective about the system? I mean, admitting that it doesn't sound much different than a cheaper system would mean that that person acted foolishly. It would imply that that person was wrong all the time when listening to music on that system, thinking that it sounds superior. To protect oneself from the painful experience of being wrong, the human brain tries to maintain the illusion of an audible difference. It's the same with politics, religion, astrology and any other aspect of our daily lifes. The more we like something, the less rational we are about it. We can try to keep rational, but it is very hard. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 12 2006 at 06:15
|
"To protect oneself from the painful experience of being wrong, the human brain tries to maintain the illusion of an audible difference. It's the same with politics, religion, astrology and any other aspect of our daily lifes."
It also aplies to your theories, like the one saying that tube amp are less good than solid tate cause they have more distorsion. But we have already discussed it. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 12 2006 at 08:07
|
Yes, we did discuss it - No, I didn't say that. You can object to what I'm saying, but please don't go around and tell that I said something which I clearly did not. It only shows that you don't really pay attention to what I'm saying. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 03:51
|
I have seen some test of cables using spectrum analysis to see if the signal was different with expensive cables and with cheap cables and there actually was a difference Besides electrical devices can pollute the power net severly, i know i had some troubles getting a device that communicated through the power net to function properly because of all the pollution. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 04:09
|
That's obvious.
But this guy prefers to negate such elementary things. Anyway, he relies on theory, i rely on practice. |
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 04:17
|
Indeed but proper analysis of the signals shows that there ARE differences, its not something you just imagine ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 04:52
Sure, nobody denies that there is a difference that shows in a spectrum analysis. The question is: Can you actually hear the difference ... the only way to find out is to conduct listening tests. And these usually show that most people simply believe to hear an improvement of sound when they listen to a sample and have been told that the $1000 cable is used - even when the cable hasn't been changed at all. That's what I meant above ... a placebo effect, wishful thinking.
Also no denying here. But again: I'm sure than in most houses (at least in industrialized areas) the power lines are not causing any audible noises or pollution. Computer networking via power lines operates at much higher frequencies than audio (like 1,000,000 times higher). ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 04:54
|
Please stop the lying and maniupulating.
Rather: I rely on science, skepticism and verificable facts, oliver relies on unprovable (and undenyable) beliefs. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: PROGMAN
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 05:03
|
I use an AIWA hi-fi system, it a 2 speaker system!!! However also I use a AMSTRAD micro hi-fi which is suprisingly good too!! ------------- CYMRU AM BYTH 
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 05:03
I did infact talk about analog communication with sounds between two boxes that is meant to exchange information on how some electrical equipment is used (DVD players,TV's and stuff like that). But many enthusiaists like to have a own electrical course for their HI-FI equipment to ensure no interference by other electrical appliances. And i belivie that this is certainly the best idea ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 05:09
|
And my personal recommendation! http://www.hifiklubben.com/image/prod/DALI2002LECH_1_m.jpg"> DALI 2002LE!
B&W ASW300 subwoofer
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 05:13
|
A bit more pricey:
B&W705
REL strata 5! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 05:44
I don't know ... is it really a good idea to spend thousands of dollars on a magical device that might improve your sound in case of interference which you couldn't even hear in the first place?
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 06:02
|
Certainly on my pc speakers if you turn the volume up to say 60% you can already hear alot of noise (Even some noise from the PC itself.) So certainly filters of some kind would help! ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 06:57
My PC is connected to my Harman-Kardon amp & Elac speakers (I know oliver - the system sucks). I can turn the volume WAY up and don't hear any noise. What soundcard are you using? Independently of that you should check your inputs ... make sure that mic in and line in are disabled.
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Lindsay Lohan
Date Posted: March 13 2006 at 07:11
|
I use a old and cheap Creative 5.1 ( i never bothered in fancy pc sound at all) I always picked up noise from the CD-rom, power supply and HDD of the pc and i have tried everything! But i never found a efficent way of cancelling it ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Fjuffe/?chartstyle=sideRed - [IMG - http://imagegen.last.fm/sideRed/recenttracks/Fjuffe.gif - |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 14 2006 at 16:23
I can only say that I had that problem both with the soundblaster live and on my two notebooks - but not with the Audigy 2 ZS, and not with the X-Fi. With these cards I don't hear the slightest noise even with the volume turned up 75%. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: limeyrob
Date Posted: March 21 2006 at 15:13
|
Hi All Manyu thanks for your posts. I finally went for a B&W combination of CM1 with a ASW675 subwoofer. An excellent combination for my lounge. I home tested a few other combos but this set up gave me good all round sound. So its B&W before 9.00 pm and Sennheiser HD600 after Mind you the old walls began to vibrate playing Threshold - Wounded Land. I enjoyed it though |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 21 2006 at 16:09
|
^ Consign to Oblivion should be a good test drive for your speakers ... excellent production! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 22 2006 at 07:04
You probably have to set down the cut freq and the volume. The low must be tensed and not exagerated! When the setting is well, you must not hear the sub's precense. |
Posted By: the man machine
Date Posted: March 29 2006 at 19:15
|
Sorry to put it bluntly, but it would appear that oliverstoned has fallen
aprey to the marketing (Lies.) spread by companies and perpetuated by the audiophile. |
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: March 29 2006 at 19:59
|
check this out http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Musketeer%20III/ - http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/Musketeer%20III/ |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 01:26
As bluntly, it seems that you don't know what you're talking about and never heard what a good system can do (not necessarly very expensive). |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 01:56
All that matters for me is:
------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 03:34
|
The small difference is for example the difference between a vague buzzing as a bass line on one side, and a powerful, bass line where you can hear and feel each note in your body, and as if the bass player is in the room. The difference between a harsh and confuse highs where there are instruments missing and clear, transparent highs with moving voices, violins or trumpets for example.
If some people -audiophiles- manage to have nice highs -thanks to tube amps mostly-, very few optmize enough to manage to reach a powerful and dynamic low. To reach that, power and vibration cancelling optimization is essential. As you see, despite your painful comments, i remain cool and phlegmatic as i have new responsabilies on this site and so i must show the good example... AUM 
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 04:46
|
That is mainly a question of volume and speaker diameter (sound pressure). The cheap Logitech 5.1 system that I bought a few weeks ago has an amazing presence and brilliance ... you actually hear much more detail than with my old (and not cheap) Harman-Kardon hi-fi system. I know that you don't like both of these ... but let me assure you that neither of them produces "vague buzzing" for bass lines. And together with the X-Fi Crystalizer (which is essentially doing what musical CD players do to the signal) there are also no problems in the "highs". Sure, a system that costs 100 times more will sound better. but not 100 times better!
I try to make my comments as painless as possible. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 04:57
...try to remain cool
AUM
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:08
|
^ the problem is that you (or audiophiles in general) say that my system "cannot" sound good. On the otherhand I've yet to meet a sceptic who says that audiophile systems "cannot" sound good. On the contrary ... I'm sure that 99% of all sceptics would agree that these systems sound great! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:10
| It can't "push walls" as mine does... |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:17
|
Now that's definitely a mere question of volume. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 05:32
|
No! dynamic!
|
Posted By: the man machine
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:06
|
throughout the whole process of recording a record i beleive that the
accuracy of the recording and editing hardware and software will be the limiting factor . so if the aim of being an audiophile is faithful reproduction then surely that is not possible due to problems at the recording stage. that was really a question not a statement! |
Posted By: the man machine
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:10
|
i would not claim that audiophile products are necissarily overpriced
boxxes of magic . it just appears like there is very little scientific evidence to back claims up furthermore i think another question to ask would be : how "accurate" are your ears in collecting the sound produced by your system? what factors alter the sound? should you voraciously clean your ears before each listen to get the best sound!!? it all seems a bit religious to me. |
Posted By: the man machine
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:14
| oh yes and what does "push walls" actually mean? |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 06:59
|
When you have a system with a high dynamic range, the only way to really put that range to use is to crank up the volume. That's why most modern 5.1 systems designed for DVD playback normally offer a way to reduce the dynamics (compressor), because otherwise you wouldn't be able to watch an action movie at normal volume level and still be able to hear dialogs. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 07:29
|
A U M
To breathe...slowly...calm down |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 07:35
|
So your system makes the walls shake at low volume? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 07:50
|
I woul drather say that at medium level, the image pushes the wall. Although i need to optimize more to "push the walls" more. (Power optimization in my case).
It's hard to describe, but ther's so much dynamic and the image is so large that i'm at the heart of the sound (3D effect). On Cd moreover. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 08:13
|
^ I guess our definitions of "medium" volume differ. I'm mostly listening at volume levels which wouldn't make your neighbor come over and ask you to turn it down. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 11:46
The issue is the result not the theories. Good tubes amp works, good cables works -while bad ones downgrade-, power optimization and vib cancelling are essential issues. Few are aware of that, even among audiophiles. When you know and that put all together you can reach an incredible result. These are facts. Everybody who listen reacts the same way when listening my system (audiophiles or non-audiophiles but music lovers). But i don't ask you to trust me on my speech. That's normal to have doubts when you didn't hear. You would understand what all is about just by listening. Some PA forum members may listen to my system in a near future and testify. |
Posted By: the man machine
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 12:06
|
would you agree with me in saying that it seems like audiophiles can be
very eliteist and often claim that a lesser system is incapable but in reality the user of that system does not know any better so what difference does it make? |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 12:35
|
Indeed, you can't be frustrated by the lack of something you doesn't know.
And as says Mike, you can enjoy music even on the worst equipment...as long as you haven't heard better. That what's dangerous with Hifi and there's the risk to become a junky abble of everything to get his 1000 power cable, cause it transfigurates its system. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: March 30 2006 at 17:08
|
You know what ... I don't mind any of these comments. While writing these lines I'm listening to some cool music on my system, and life is great! ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 03:44
The link posted above is interesting. I am not an over the top fanatic about audio gear. I am into it, but not to the point of spending thousands of dollars on speaker cables. I can safely say that the article is very misleading in it's bashing of audio's more sensitive issues. Hyperlitz cables do make a difference and so does bi-wiring. That can be proven easily. Hyperlitz wires vary in diameter throughout the stands and this allows the spectrum of audio frequencies to travel along the wire best suited for that frequency. What this does is keep your impedance stable through the wire throughout the audio spectrum.
Stable impedance is very important in any wire that carries varying frequencies. Another words, the wire should not be editorializing the signal at all. Hyperlitz and wire purity and very important in this regard.
Bi-wiring is very effective as well. The frequencies above and below the crossover point say in a 2 way speaker system will separate and thus keeping the high frequencies directed to the high frequency transducer and the low frequencies directed to the low frequency transducer.
This keeps the low frequency signals out of the wire on route to the high frequency transducer. This produces a more stable signal with less harmonic distortion.
The matter of tubes is very real indeed. They have a sound signature that bi-polar transistors don't have. For one thing. Bi-polar transistors are current gain devices and tubes are voltage gain devices.
There are semi-conductors that closely mimic tubes and they are known as Field Effect Transistors (FET's). These devices are very similar in sound characteristics as tubes. Many manufacturers employ FET's instead of tubes to get that "tube" like sound. In general Bi-Polar transistors tend to be more linear but they produce even order harmonics, (well some amps more so than others) and even order harmonics are not as easy on the ear as odd order harmonic distortions which are produced by FET's and tubes. Tubes if done right have a very natural sound (lack of second order distotions) in the mid to high frequencies and they clip slowly as well. This slow clipping is not as evident as the hard clipping that occurs in bi-polar devices, thus less noticeable to the ear. Hard clipping makes thing sound very harsh. That's why a lot of transitor gear sounds so hard when the volume is turned up too high. Whatever the set-up and there are many, proper circuit design and matching of either tube or semi-conductor is critical. There is so much to this science and there are a lot of so called engineers out there that pooh pooh the whole audio thing. I know first hand that the differences are very real. It's just a matter of being smart and knowing where to draw the line. Most cheep gear employs a method known as feedback to keep circuits stable. Feed back blurs images and messes up the sound stage and adds distortion called IM Distortion or Intermediate Harmonic Distortion which is very nasty on the ears. There is a lot of scientific garble here that would take me too long to type. I know the differences exist. I can hear them. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 03:50
|
Indeed!!
These articles were written by jealous people! |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 04:24
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 04:48
Indeed, musicalilty is the point and you can't understand it before listening to a musical system, not necessary over expensive. Some devices are high end, very expensive and bad and not musical, such as the Magnum Dynalab receivers:
(whereas some are tube (the most expensive 10 000) and still very bad, i prefer any little solid state tuner such as a little Rega, Naim or Creek). |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 04:55
|
^ but distortion is something which can be measured objectively. My soundcard has very low distortion, as low as many high end systems. Why can't I say "I like how it sounds" without being constantly attacked by audiophiles, accusing me either of being jealous or to have bad hearing?
IMO "musicality" is a myth anyway. Don't get me wrong - I believe that these systems sound great. I just think that the term is misleading, as it suggests that "non-musical" systems are not suitable for listening to music - like who listens to music on non-musical system is missing something. I can only once again remind people that music developed on crappy systems. People were able to enjoy music in the 50s as much as they are able to enjoy it today, on WHATEVER system. And I'm not jealous of high end systems at all ... give me the necessary money, and I will not spend it on such a system, but on CDs instead. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:05
|
I've already explained you dozens of times that the measurement criterias are not pertinent:
Tubes distors less than solid state when you listen, whereas on the paper, the distorsion rate is higher. So what's important? the theory on the paper or the result? The explanation is the pair/unpair harmonics issue. So distorsion rate criteria means NOTHING. Musicality can be defined as the ability for a device "to make music", while non musical devices are painful to listen to and don't give pleasure. This is experience, not theory. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:16
|
I like what I hear. That's also experience, oliver. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:21
|
I don't ask you to believe me on speech, Mike. You made your own experience, and conclude that hifi doesn't works. I was in the same stagnation, before i met my hifi master and that my life been upset by Jolida 302 tube amp.
At the time, i had a Cambridge audio amp, a Micromega CD, bad Audioquest cables, virtually no power and vib' optimization. On another hand, i had nice Mission bookshelf on Atacama feet. It was of course very average and disapointing. I was feeling that something was going wrong and i was frustrated cause it was not musical at all. |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:26
|
Oh, and getting back to distortion. Generic audio equipment never lists IM distortion in it's specs. Good high end gear does. I wonder why????? They list harmonic distortion, which can be pretty much eliminated with negative feedback which oddly enough increases Intermodulation distortion. Intermodulation distortion is "hard sounding" and rapidly brings on listener fatigue. Nasty stuff indeed!
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:29
|
...each time you upgrade, you lower distorsion.
I.E by power filtering, this is really huge!! |
Posted By: Sacred 22
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:30
|
The technical explanations are all there if anyone cares to research it.
I am hooked on ribbons. The best transducer I have yet to hear! Oh so sweet and oh so fast. |
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:33
|
Indeed, ribbon tweeters are the best for highs.
Tube + ribbon is the royal way in the highs. |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:49
|
^ so if you say all that, why did you choose the second option in my audiophile poll? ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:50
| Sorry? Please rephrase |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 05:58
|
"To come back to your poll, i voted 2, cause it was the only possible answer to this stupid (and not funny) question.
I totally agree with you that you can enjoy music through the worst equipment, like on MP3. Moreover, that's what most people do, so do it. Anyway, to listen to some noise, MP3 is highly sufficient in your case." That's what I was referring to. Despite of the included attack ("all MER listens to is noise") you are agreeing that listening to cheap systems can be enjoyable. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 06:35
Yes, except Zappa. You can enjoy music on the worst equipment as long as you've not heard something best. And that's the interest and perversion of (good) hifi : -On one hand, it enables you to rediscover records when you upgrade. -As soon as you've heard better, you want the same! |
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 06:45
|
"As soon as you've heard better, you want the same! "
Not necessarily. A few weeks ago I bought a new TV set with HDTV capabilities, and I watched two HD (720p) movies. The visual quality was awesome, much more detailed than the normal DVD. Does that mean that I'm now "spoilt" and can't enjoy watching DVDs anymore? Certainly not. It's the same with music. Surely there are better speakers than my 70 EUR Logitech speakers. But they are better than many speaker sets which are 5 times as expensive. And with all due respect: I seriously doubt that speakers which cost 100 times more (7,000 EUR) are really 100 times better ... or to put it differently: I doubt that they would make me enjoy the music 100 times more. ------------- https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 06:49
|
You and your numbers...
There are 3 speakers... does it means that a 300 speaker will be 100 times better? 
|
Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: April 27 2006 at 06:52
Considering the albums, that would be better spent on cables
|