|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.126.197.238
In Reply to: RE: John Atkinson... posted by RGA on May 31, 2012 at 23:23:27
I have heard several SET based systems, and they all sounded very musical (i.e., pleasant). The 3/5 will make many CDs sound "pleasant" or at least tolerable. It all depends on what audio camp you belong to: the "sounds good" camp or the "absolute sound" camp. I belong to the absolute sound camp, but I do have a "sounds good" set of equipment (using Fulton J speakers instead of the Dunlavy SCIVs, and using the Mystere CA21 preamp instead of the Audio Research SP8).
Follow Ups:
"The 3/5 will make many CDs sound "pleasant" or at least tolerable."
Although I agree with this comment isn't it paradoxal that the speaker was born as a recording monitor designed to flag any distortion while broadcasting?
That's where the sharp treble came from... As a warning sign that the broadcasting was coming in too hot.
Yet the somewhat plush midrange now makes it a "comfort" speaker. I think it says a lot about the evolution of recordings and where we have gained or lost. The BBC from the 70s worried about distorted treble, with CD we have to fluff up the midrange...
The 3/5 are anything but flat in the treble. Why anyone loves these highly colored, inefficient speakers is a big puzzle. Some just love evereything English (and detest everything from the US).
the puzzle may exist only in your mind. are you not, perhaps, being a tad limited in your look at who might enjoy this speaker? a little bit of self reflection goes a long way.
I've compared 3/5 speakers in blind listening tests, and consistently rate them at the bottom. NO ONE has put the 3/5s at the top of our blind tests. The combination of low efficiency and over-emphasized mid bass with NO deep bass doesn't impress me in the slightest.
The term absolute sound is meaningless drivel. Which was probably coined by a magazine...
Sounds good is the only thing that actually matters. The alternative to sounding good is sounding like shite. And Shite may be the "absolute sound" but it's not what I want to spend money on.
Bright, hard, fatiguing treble and bass SLAM somewhere along the way became the "absolute sound" and "accurate."
No speaker is accurate - being bright or having bass slam may seem like it is giving more of the recording - if it is brighter it must be presenting more information - which is is - whether it's from the recording is another matter.
Don't be so defensive about being in the "sounds good" camp. Many reviewers agree (AD being the main one). I, and several others, HP and JV and JGH being the chief ones, think truth to live acoustic music should be the goal of the high end. First, progress in ever higher audio quality demands that we keep our ears on the goal. Look at the progress in digital sound. Early digital
was pure crap, and fell far short of analogue sound. Those who favored analogue (anyone with ears, IMO) refused to be seduced by the convenience of digital. The "measurements above all" camp finally were forced to admit that digital was inaccurate in ways that analogue was not (jitter and sampling rate limitations being two). Digital sound improved slowly, and recent breakthroughs have made high res digital much more accurate (true to live sound). Measurements have played a role in that improvement of digital. Second, with poor recordings (unfortunately many analogue records fall into this group; all but recent digital also belong in the poor recording group), audio equipment that makes these poor recordings pleasant sounding fail to sound as good with great recordings. When I am comparing audio systems, I use several of my best sounding vinyl records. Speakers with tipped up bass and rolled off treble may make crap CDs tolerable, but they DON"T sound best (OR most realistic) with the best recordings. I suspect that JA uses the 3/5 precisely because they make his digital sound pleasant. Accurate speakers reveal 99% of digital to be audio dreck. Most tube units perform a similar function. The best tube manufactures (Audio Research being the leader here) have tried to narrow the gape between the accuracy of ss in the very low and the very high end. I DO admit that SET amps sound more pleasant AND more realistic to my ears. However, more scientific research will reveal why SETs sound more true to live music. I suspect the absence of feedback and a simpler approach are two of the chief reasons why SETs sound more accurate.
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: