Excellent book on High-End Audio

[jazzbo]

Hey I can understand that. . . . I don't have mine any longer, sold it to get the Monoblocks from the same builder that I now have that have about twice the power. .. five watts per channel! Sound almost the same, but drive the Decware Radial speakers better.

I spent a lot but man I love the sound, and just when I got this system dialed in I inherited a Bang and Olufsen from my wife's aunt and now have a great living room system as well (which is totally different!)

Edited July 14, 2004 by jazzbo

[neveronfriday]

I admit to being somewhat of an audiophile. Within limits (my setup is comparatively cheap). But I have this to say:

I have never understood how people can go wild about music and, for example, update to the latest remastering jobs only to have the music squeezed through some crappola equipment. What good does that do the music? That's like photo-copying a Rembrandt and then saying it looks as good as the original.

Nobody has to spend tons of money, and some of the voodoo stuff out there is just too much (the equipment is good, but you need to build a house around it to actually have the acoustic environment to get anything out of it), but nowadays there's so much comparatively good equipment around, that, in my opinion, there's no excuse for boom-boxing a good recording to death.

And yes, I have lots of good music and care about what's played.

But I also care about the sound.

Cheers!

[Leeway]

i've never had a "great" system, although i am well over 5k cd's at this point.

lately, i find that i listen to most of my music on my bose wave radio in the computer room (and it's not even the acoustic wave).

it sounds good enough to me.

besides i have to buy "london calling" for the 3rd time, and "one flight up" for the 2nd time.

who has money to upgrade their system when there are so many cd's to upgrade.

Why upgrade the CDs then? On a mediocre stereo (or worse) the audio differences will most likely not be noticeable at all. The money spent replacing the same music could go to buying new music (or upgrading your stereo so that CD upgrades would make a noticeable difference).

$5,000 should buy a pretty nice system, if not "great." Am wondering what the problem is with your system that, having invested a good bit of money in it, you prefer the Bose boombox (which alone costs about $500 if I recall correctly).

I don't mean any of this in a hostile manner, just can't really sort out the conflicting ideas in your post.

[wolff]

(still waiting for my amp, being assembled as we speak - even with just the DAC and speakers and my old Denon amp I'm in heaven, but can't wait to hear what I heard in the dealer listening room with the same speakers and DAC plus the tube amp!).

Glad you are liking your new stuff!! I'm drooling. Does the wife think you are crazy?

Those amps must be moving off the shelves pretty good.

I'd like to put one of these Audio Notes together.

Edited July 14, 2004 by wolff

[wolff]

i've never had a "great" system, although i am well over 5k cd's at this point.

lately, i find that i listen to most of my music on my bose wave radio in the computer room (and it's not even the acoustic wave).

it sounds good enough to me.

besides i have to buy "london calling" for the 3rd time, and "one flight up" for the 2nd time.

who has money to upgrade their system when there are so many cd's to upgrade.

Why upgrade the CDs then? On a mediocre stereo (or worse) the audio differences will most likely not be noticeable at all. The money spent replacing the same music could go to buying new music (or upgrading your stereo so that CD upgrades would make a noticeable difference).

$5,000 should buy a pretty nice system, if not "great." Am wondering what the problem is with your system that, having invested a good bit of money in it, you prefer the Bose boombox (which alone costs about $500 if I recall correctly).

I don't mean any of this in a hostile manner, just can't really sort out the conflicting ideas in your post.

This is a new breed of consumer brought about by the digital age and it's big buck advertising.

It all started when CD's had the tendency to sound like shit when promising otherwise. Now, it's a dreadmill trying to catch up , but going I know not where.

Possibly, another stereotype to include in this thread.

The above has been in jest, do whatever makes you happy!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 14, 2004 by wolff

[Sundog]

For me it's all about personal taste. I'm seriously considering dropping 12K on speakers. The very thought of spending that kind of money on speakers would drive many crazy. Hey, the more practical side of me from time to time even second guesses the wisdom of this decision. Bottom line is that I really appreciate music and I want it played back in a manner that fits my personal taste. I've been thinking about going this route for the better part of three years, so I wouldn't consider it a rash decision.

Trust me when I say, the only reason I even consider doing this is to enhance my listening experience for purposes of enjoying the music even more than I already do. I don't give one shit about keeping up with the Jones' or acquiring some perceived level of status with this impending purchase. So think what you will, but know that I will very happy when the day finally comes. And yes, I do know that $12,000 equates to about 1333 RVGs.

[Leeway]

Sundog, what audio equipment are you thinking of buying with that $$$ ?

[Sundog]

My Next Speakers???

[DrJ]

Sundog, those look like nice speakers...but VERY pricey. Obviously, trust your ears as the main test, but if you're looking at stuff in this price range, you ought to consider checking out Zingali speakers:

Zingali Web site

Not only are they physically gorgeous, but they sound fantastic and many of their best models are considerably less expensive than the Wilsons you're looking at. I paid about $5000 for a pair of Overture .2s (the newer version of these - Overture 2 - looks and sounds slightly different - smaller physical profile which may be good in a small room, but I slightly prefer the sound of the .2s for some reason) and I'm ecstatic so far. The soundstage imaging precision is unreal, and the mids and highs are the best and truest I've ever heard. Billie Holiday's vocals on her earliest Verve sessions (as remastered in the Verve boxed set), for example, sound otherworldy realistic. The low end is also very tight and non-muddy, but be aware that if you prefer a bottom-heavy sound, this may not be your speaker - I don't, preferring less boom and more precision since 90% of what I listen to is acoustic jazz, so they're perfect for me. The bass sounds REAL and musical to me, not pumped up, so the realism in reproduction of the double bass is fantastic. Rock sounds great on these speakers too, but again if you're a fan of the pumped up bottom end, you may not like the sound. Classical sounds unreal - transforms the whole listening experience to me and by far the closest to a good concert hall I've heard (comparable to the unamplified performances I've heard in the UC Davis Mondavi Center state of the art hall).

As I mentioned above, I'm not a "specs" guy but I do note that the sensitivity of the Wilsons is not that great (less than 90dB) - which means if you want to run them with tube amplification, I'd be very careful checking out the sound in advance. In general, the speakers I listened to that sounded good with tubes had sensitivities of 90dB or higher. I probably am mangling the physics here, but my understanding is that this is required because most tube set ups (especially integrated systems like the AudioNote Meishu I have on the way) have pretty low outputs (8 W per channel) which freaks people used to solid state out initially but, trust me, is MORE than enough with a sensitive, tube-friendly speaker like the Zingali. I know impedence is also a factor, and the Wilsons actually have a lower (4 ohm) impedence than the Zingalis I have (6 ohm) so that may actually be in their favor for tube set ups. Again, I'm no electrical engineer or physicist - this is based on my listening, not on the specs alone. So trust your ears.

If you're running solid state amps, as far as I know you don't lose anything by having a more sensitive speaker although that may not be true - others can chime in.

Of the Zingali line, probably the .4s is "the king" sonically - unbelievably good, with more beef at the lower end than the .2s - but they were just too darn physically big for my listening room and I found floorstanders caused rumble in there despite best efforts at placement. I think they also run about $8000/pr, so more pricey. I didn't like the .3s - smaller bass cone than used in the .2s and .4s meant that these WERE too light at the bottom end.

Edited July 15, 2004 by DrJ

[AmirBagachelles]

I'd say $2500 for speakers, and amp and a CD player is all that my ears can get out of it. There is just too much good music to acquire. And I can be happy at just over $1000 too -- NAD & B&W (or pick a good $200-400 pr).

[Claude]

I have upgraded my hifi set last summer (cost me $10.000) after using the same good $3000 set for the last 10 years. It has increased my listening pleasure enormously. It sounds so realistic especially with small jazz bands that I have the impression of a daily private concert in my living room.

But I only spent this much because I could do it without having to restrict my music purchases. However, I have spent less on CDs lately because I´m now rediscovering my complete music collection (about 2000 CDs).

I agree that it is stupid to put sound quality above the music and to have an expensive hifi sytem with only a limited music collection.

But I also think that many collectors spend too much on music purchases, because they buy more CDs than they can listen too (discs are listened to once and then shelved away). By reducing the money spend on CDs and using it to have a better hifi system one can actually improve the music life. Less collecting, more enjoying.

Edited July 15, 2004 by Claude

[wolff]

I upgrade, maybe slightly, my audio once every couple years or so. I have no problem buying used, so often I sell for about(or more than) what I paid. When I retire I'll probably get the most insane turntable set-up I can afford. I believe, all things being equal, the source is most important.

My phono cartridges need to be replaced every 2/3 years. Some just need a new stylus, while others need to be rebuilt(good as new but half the price as new). Have gotten these used, also.

One thing I have to watch out for is wanting an expensive system after hearing it. I've gone into hi-fi stores and friend's homes and have heard some amazing stereo. When I go home and listen to mine, I'm a little let down, but it passes.

Since I have a lot of music(like most off you) I am picky or selective about what I buy. If I listened to 2 different albums a day for 4 years I'd be at the tale end of my collection. I've sold quite a bit of stuff, also.

What Claude said about upgrading and hearing your old collection anew is very true and possibly more economical than buying more music or upgrading to the lastest digital or vinyl reissued wonder.

Edited July 15, 2004 by wolff

[Sundog]

Thanks for the link DrJ. It's obvious the me that you are very happy with your recent upgrades. I'm glad you are enjoying the music your new system is producing. That's really what it's all about!

Despite some of their specs, the Sophia's are very tube friendly. I've auditioned them a couple of times. Once, powered by high end Balanced Audio Technology tube gear including a BAT CD player as the source, and another time hooked up to a middle of the road Denon A/V receiver with a $250 dollar Sony CD/SACD player. I think you might know which I liked better. However, the Denon/Sony combo sounded amazing! Which is reassuring since I will be phasing in other system upgrades around the speakers over time. I actually will be using a Denon 5803 A/V receiver for awhile since I'm dismantling my surround setup in favor of my dream two-channel system.

Just to give you all some perspective I have about 2700 pieces of music in my collection. About 1200 of which are vinyl. I ain't no audiophile! I'm a music lover first and foremost. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, I got a lot of those 12X12 black boxes with the silver lettering on the spine too!

[Chuck Nessa]

It may well be a dandy book. I don't know 'cause I ain't seen it - I do have to admit the word complete (in the title) is a red flag for me. If it looks good to you, buy it.

Please understand my perspective - electrical equipment is dandy, but I am haunted by those for whom this is obsessive. Same for the fanatic record collectors - "I have 92,000 jazz lps and will pay a fortune for the 3 I don't have". But you need to understand that in these instances it is "mostly" people knowing nothing about the reality of their subject.

Music first, reproduced decently. I KNOW WHAT GREAT SOUND IS! Professionally, I have worked in both the analogue and digital domain for 38 a total of years. When I work on a project I am dealing with equipment beyond your dreams. When I started the state of the art was the 3 track machine - Ampexes all.

My main point is that "collectors, audiophiles" and other experts set standards and rules having nothing to do with reality. AND some of the "lore" is bogus.

Edited July 16, 2004 by Chuck Nessa

[DrJ]

I hear what you're saying Chuck and largely agree.

However, I get the impression though that most of the folks on this board who are complete audio nuts are also utter music nuts (with a few exceptions, and most of those seem to have largely slunk off without a trace).

This is a double whammy condition otherwise known as totally %&*#@ing nuts!

There's a special place in hell for all of us.

In case you're wondering: it's a sonically treated room filled with pristine vinyl and perfectly recorded and mastered CDs, plus a beautiful, high end listening system. The catch is, it's so small that the media is stacked right up to the ceiling and, more importantly, up against the speakers - so you can't actually hear anything...

Edited July 16, 2004 by DrJ

[marcoliv]

However, I get the impression though that most of the folks on this board who are complete audio nuts are also utter music nuts

that's me!!!

ps: btw, your kid is lovely on that photo!

[wolff]

ps: btw, your kid is lovely on that photo!

Yep!!

Hope he's still lovely when he puts a finger in a tweeter.

Why do kids(and adults) go right for the tweeter?

[Chuck Nessa]

Why do kids(and adults) go right for the tweeter?

Another reason to have an inexpensive system with only one speaker.

If single mike recording is good, single speaker must be good too.

[wolff]

Another reason to have an inexpensive system with only one speaker.

If single mike recording is good, single speaker must be good too.

I believe there are a few groups that are into the mono thing. Huge mono speakers(horns) and 1.5 watt amps.

Then there are the the guys who have two arms on their tt, one with stereo cartridge and the other with a mono cartridge(back in vogue).

I would actualy like to try the mono cartridge thing. Grado makes some cheap ones.

[kulu se mama]

Am wondering what the problem is with your system that, having invested a good bit of money in it, you prefer the Bose boombox (which alone costs about $500 if I recall correctly).

leeway,

i didn't say i prefer my bose wave radio - i said that i spend most of my time listening to the bose wave radio.

my stereo system is down stairs in the living room. my office is upstairs and there is only room for the bose. i work out of the house and i spend more time in the office than i do downstairs.

also, my comment about replacing cd's was 1/2 in jest.

i rarely replace solely for sound quality (figuring if i wait a few years a better edition will come along), but i do replace for sound quality and additional material (london calling and all of the elvis costello rhino reissues).

it is definitely a downward spiral.

[DrJ]

Thanks for the comments about "the boy" - he was a year old yesterday!

For years I did all my listening on a $400 all-in-one Kenwood system that sounded boomy, hollow, and dull. But I was happy as a lark, and all my early days of exploring jazz were all done with that vehicle.

I'm sure I'd be quite happy to listen to jazz again on that system if that was all I had access to. But it is hard to go backwards, once you've heard how good recorded music can sound.

Edited July 16, 2004 by DrJ

[neveronfriday]

In case you're wondering: it's a sonically treated room filled with pristine vinyl and perfectly recorded and mastered CDs, plus a beautiful, high end listening system. The catch is, it's so small that the media is stacked right up to the ceiling and, more importantly, up against the speakers - so you can't actually hear anything...

Sounds like my old place (minus the sonic treatment).

And, now that I have a much bigger place, the speakers are somewhat up against a slanted wall, facing a wall made from some sort of hollow plaster plates (no idea what these are called in English).

In fact, the room is a boom box in itself, but at least it is so big that most of the negative effects are simply swallowed up by all the air in it.

It's always been my opinion that one should buy the stereo equipment one likes best ... and then actually have the house built around it to also have the acoustics for it.

That's what I would do if I won the national state lottery ... four or five times. First though, I would have all my stereo equipment transported to the Maldives for 12 weeks of listening to my music on the beach while being spoon-fed and served cool drinks whenever I manage to move a finger.

Cheers!

Edited July 17, 2004 by deus62

[Dmitry]

Correction - this book is highly recommended to anyone but Chuck...

2nd edition is the one to get. It introduces the sacd, dvd-a, etc. and it's also been expanded in other topics.

Being interested in music and sound, I put music first. Sound is the servant.

...

The point I want to make is "electronics should be used in the service of music"! It is too easy for some to reverse this order and lose perspective.

If you have not recently won the lottery, or scammed unbelievable bucks from elsewhere, buy more music.

Chuck, let me put it this way - my music collection easily cost me 10x more than I paid for my stereo components.

I am by no means a gear-head but for me a decent stereo set-up is an important necessity to appreciate the music to its fullest.