|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.142.209.123
I did not mean to sound harsh. I am sorry. I think I belong here because it is older stereo stuff I like better anyway. I like my music to have “character” and not sound sterile. What I did not like on the speaker asylum was that they seemed to believe they knew everything and I knew nothing. All I want to do is learn. I enjoy learning but I must have came across wrong.
I still have those KEF speakers but they are my backup speakers because I like my ADS ones more. Here’s why…the KEF’s do sound good but are a 2 way speaker. The ADS speakers are 3 way and the midrange sounds “fuller”.
About my garage system…Ever heard the saying “they don’t make things like they used to?”. I use on older Pioneer receiver there and I accidentally left the subwoofer wires touching each other. Newer receivers would go into the “protect” mode, but not this one. The subwoofer has only a single voice coil, so I hooked it in parallel with one of the channels and the mains in both and it works fine. One side is not as loud, but I just balanced them. I wouldn’t do that to my house stereo, but it is worth nothing and in my garage and sounds good.
I have had many, many stereo products over the years and wonder what it that stands out to you? Here is what I like and dislike..
I like KEF’s attention to detail and there speaker protection system.
I like ADS because they separate the drivers acoustically and protect the drivers with fuses
I like Phase Technology cabinets.
I like NAD’s soft clipping feature
I like Raunas idea for cabinets (concrete)
I like it that Dr. Bose was not afraid to think outside of the box
I like the overall quality of Atlantic Technology speakers
I do not like it when a speaker company is bought out by a bigger company who cares little
About them (like Cerwin Vega)
I think HDMI was a step backwards
I like the sound from a good 5.1 system for movies
Follow Ups:
not so good for sound, great for when you leave the house with others left there playing your stereo.
...regards...tr
You try to come off as knowing more than you actually do. Not knowing isan't a bad thing, but trying to bullshit those who do know better and treatingthem as if THEY don't know what they are talking about is asking for trouble.
Getting snippy about it when called on it just makes it worse.
I agree. That is why I openly admit I know little. When did I ever try to come across that way? I am sorry if I did.
Re-read that link and look at your most recent response to E-stat.In the linked thread, given the sparsity of information you provided, I, and the poster below me, properly answer your question towards the top of the thread.
But you couldn't comprehend what was said so you persisted in throwing other stuff that you THOUGHT was relevant, perhaps to try to discredit my answer. It sure seemed that way.
Now, had you provided the make and model number of the receiver in question initially, perhaps a lot of confusion could have been avoided. Even when you did make it known and it's capabilities, or lack thereof, were mmade known to you, you still persisted in arguing.
Listen to, and try to comprehend, the answers provided and ruminate on them before going off in totally different, unrelated directions and arguing with those trying to educate you.
We can explain it TO you but we cannot understand it FOR you.
Edits: 06/18/14 06/18/14
a
Well, it sounds like you know what you like. If you're happy, I'm happy.For myself, I like tube gear driving most any speakers. I built a brand new Dynaco Stereo 70 recently that has the benefit of the sweet, lush quality of the original circuit design with the clarity/detail of fresh, higher performance parts - makes a nice combination. Sounds great driving my Magnepan MG12QR.
Edits: 06/18/14 06/18/14
carry on a conversation with anyone?
sure. why do you ask?
since folks have asked you questions here and elsewhere that go unanswered - like one of my posts below.
I tried to answer every question I could remember in this post AND I asked one of you guys...did I miss one?
over in the eveel speaker forum, there were several responses to your post with questions contained in a couple to clarify your experiment:
Your post
Kal (a professional reviewer most knowledgeable about MC) had two questions.
Inmate 51 had a couple, too.
With this post in vintage , I asked a couple of questions - one of which was answered in a later post.
I was tired of being made fun of. Sorry..
I thought it was an interesting experiment. I learned something. Some try to be "surrounded" by their music. While it is good to be part of the movie set, I am not sure it is good to be up on the stage with the band. Did I say I had the perfect stereo? My mistake. But it does sound good to me. I have a HK AVR 7000, ADS L710 mains and an Atlantic Tech subwoofer. I made a typo in my post. It is a 5.1 receiver not a 5.2. My computer is connected to my stereo, so I usually listen to online music (it is only 2 channel). It is nice when watching a DVD of Blu Ray movie because they have more than 2 audio tracks, and 5.1 songs do sound nice there, but I am happy with 2 channels for music. I guess that is why we don't buy music DVD's. Any more questions?
I have a question....I have been told many times that a tube amp sounds better than solid state. They are rare and getting rarer it seems. If they are better it seems like someone would still make them. Do they?
I was tired of being made fun of.
I think folks were simply trying to get clarification, not to make fun of you.
Some try to be "surrounded" by their music
Which is not the goal of true multi-channel. It is to reproduce the room acoustic such that you feel that you are in the middle of the hall. It is true than a lot of early quadraphonic recordings ended up "placing" musicians behind you as well. I don't find that realistic. What you should hear in the rear channels is hall ambience, not the guitar player.
What wasn't clear with your "experiment" was whether you were:
1. Listening to a true MC recording and just turned off the center and sub ("I always wondered what 4 speakers...")
or
2. You were listening to a two channel source either in a synthesized "surround mode" or simply dual stereo sending the same content to the rear
I think you'll find Kal's questions were trying to ascertain the answer.
I guess that is why we don't buy music DVD's
Some folks do and enjoy the better done recordings although I confess that I'm not of that group. Having said that, I find that a true MC system can sound pretty darned realistic with the right recording. I didn't go down that path because of relatively little software available of the artists I listen to. Lots of classical and reissues of old rock, but that's about it.
I have been told many times that a tube amp sounds better than solid state. They are rare and getting rarer it seems. If they are better it seems like someone would still make them. Do they?
There are good reasons why tubes can be superior to most solid state. I prefer using them in the main system. Ironically, there is wider availability of tube gear today than there was thirty years ago - at many price points. You can purchase a new tube integrated for $600 or $60,000 from dozens of manufacturers. Vintage tube amps abound. Follow inmate Michael Samra's posts here at vintage for examples. He rebuilds all manner of old tube gear and resells them.
Listing of tube amps Stereophile has reviewed
BTW, are you aware of inmate profiles and systems? Click a moniker and you can find out more. Perhaps you may want to detail your system as many do. I think you'll find most of us want to share and learn from others.
I still used the sub with speaker level inputs. I took out the pre amp to amp jumpers.
I have another question...is there way way to get the digital signal from online sources before it is converted to an analog signal? And is the online digital signal ever more than 2 tracks?
what do you mean a list is kept of our systems? I think most can figure out pretty close what mine sounds like. The only thing I do differently is controversial...I have my mains on 4' stands (my ceiling is 9') which places the drivers between the floor and ceiling which to me sounds cleaner.
I still used the sub with speaker level inputs. I took out the pre amp to amp jumpers.
That still doesn't answer the most important question:
Were you listening to a stereo recording on four speakers or a true multi-channel recording with the center channel disconnected? That will certainly affect why you arrived at your conclusion.
is there way way to get the digital signal from online sources before it is converted to an analog signal?
Yes. Many computer sound cards provide a digital output in addition to an analog one. That allows you to use an external DAC with your computer source.
Sorry I did not answer your question. I used a 2 channel input. Now I understand a little getter why I did not like it. So, you are saying most sound cards have a 5.1 output? Di quadrophonic stereos provide 4 different audio signals? Did they require special music formats?
So, you are saying most sound cards have a 5.1 output?
The better aftermarket ones do, but stock ones imbedded with the motherboard often do not. In my last computer, I used a Turtle Beach card that did. The built in capability with my current Dell Studio does not.
Di quadrophonic stereos provide 4 different audio signals?
That's really the whole point. With any multi-channel format. A discrete signal is sent to each of however many channels there are.
Did they require special music formats?
Absolutely. The original quadraphonic format from the 70s used otherwise two channel vinyl with the back channels encoded as high frequency carriers above 40 kHz. You won't find a five channel MP3. You won't find a five channel WAV (CD format). That realm only exists with video based formats like DTS, Dolby Digital, etc. and audio formats like DVD-A, SACD and Blu Ray music.
Now I understand a little getter why I did not like it.
Think about it for a minute. You're at a concert. Rock concert in a sports arena. Classical concert in a music hall. Church music recital in a large cathedral. In every case, the performers are in front of you on a stage. With a few esoteric exceptions in the classical world, there aren't people performing behind you. If you recall, Amar Bose went to Boston Symphony Hall and measured that what most folks actually hear is 11% direct and 89% reflected content. So he built a speaker that sprayed 89% of the content (8 heavily equalized midranges) behind it and 11% (one) in front. What he totally missed is that the indirect content we hear in live environments is shifted in time and often in frequency. Ambience is delayed radiation of the primary signal. And it usually doesn't possess the same bass fundamentals since the wavelengths are long and not as sensitive to time. What he ended up with is a speaker that creates caricature sized images of solo instruments and voices.
For an extreme example, have you ever been in a large cathedral and heard Gregorian Chants (or heard a good recording of such)? You hear the voices and when they stop, you continue to hear the ambience as the sound decays over time. This is what fools your brain into thinking "I'm in a really big space". Which is truly the case when you hear it live. Bose completely missed the boat because 901s spray the indirect content against the back wall at the same time that the forward radiation is generated.
What true multi-channel music seeks to do is replicate the natural delayed ambience found in live music. On the other hand, sending the very same content to the back channels (your experiment) is like imagining that there are the performers on stage playing music before you and a clone of the very same performers playing the same content at the same time behind you. Huh? Don't know about you, but I've never experienced that in a live situation in my 57 years.
It is quite understandable that you find stereo content sent simultaneously to front and rear channels unsatisfying. It's not real.
When I was 16 in a galaxy long ago and far away, I owned two pair of Advent speakers and bought a Dynaco Quadaptor. It was a simple device that you attached to the outputs of your stereo receiver/integrated/power amp. You then attached the "fronts" to it - signal unchanged - and the rears which were sent a phase difference signal intended to mimic natural reverberation and hall ambience.
You could then control the relative front to back gain and the overall level of the rears. The most realistic settings required that you set the gain to be just audible . Most definitely not the same level as the fronts. While it was kinda cool for a while, it wasn't long before I sold it. Today, my Emotiva processor has a number of simulated ambience modes like the early Dynaco unit. The problem for me is that ultimately, they just really don't sound any more natural than the Quadaptor. You cannot create realistic sounding ambience after the fact IMHO.
You either have discrete multi-channel or you don't. For the main music system, I've tried to optimize room size, speaker placement and treatments to help replicate that natural sense of ambience.
Your picture of the Quadradapter made me think about the Carver C-9 Sonic Hologram (great name). I actually use this equipment in a secondary system and really find that it works for me in creating realistic ambiance. On the other hand I don't like it's effects in my main system. I also think it's effectiveness is very dependent on location of speakers. Reviews are generally mediocre but I like it for what it does in the right situation.
http://www.highfidelityreview.com/carver-c9.html
Sim
Bobbie always was into messin' with signal with "correlators" and "hologram generators". :)
a
and only 1 mouth.
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
a
~!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: