I'm trying to work out where the CFA monsterblocks(tm)* are going to fit in that sideboard. Dunno if its the camera angle or the poor things are squeezed into a alcove ending up with them being closer together than would be optimal for the listening distance?
*Could be the amps are very big or the people making them are quite small
*Could be the amps are very big or the people making them are quite small
Yes, but his goal was for the gear to be "musical." He wanted whatever distortion it had to be the good sounding kind. He didn't think his listening choices were necessarily to produce the lowest possible distortion.
However, in other cases where minimizing distortion is the primary goal, and especially when claims are made to high performance in that area, then measuring is an essential part of the process. If we are going to use people's ears to do part of the measuring, then we have be able to show that it actually works. Something like we can show that drug sniffing dogs work to detect drugs. When you want to use some biological measuring device for anything, it is not unreasonable to be asked to demonstrate that it works.
I'm surprised no sympathetic artifacts from the guitar? Ivor would be horrified.
For people who think they can EQ their room modes away, I guess they could try the same for any guitar modes.
Ah, you thought of everything. Yes I think I see it now, capoed down pretty good too.
Last edited:
Sorry that's jacco's department.
The linear pile of river stones seems rather nondescript, I must be missing something.EDIT - Sorry I forgot the ocean/river stones with lines are a fascination to some, whatever.
Last edited:
Ok, fine.
But as far as I know consciously I really don't give a hoot what anyone else expects, or what a room full of people think or think they are hearing, or what a system or gear looks like or doesn't... any more than I am swayed by an auditorium full of people going wild over a performance. In that last case more often than not my reaction is nonplussed or less... unless of course I am blown away, and in some cases the rest of the audience isn't so.
And when it comes to this audio thing, I don't expect much, so IF I hear something great only THEN am pleasantly surprised, interested or intrigued.
Low expectations, hard to be disappointed?
Yes. it makes the largest detectable difference. Other things can be easily picked up and moved/removed. The more narrow dispersion angle of the M2 helps as well. I have two large acoustic absorbing panels.... one to place by the glass wall on the left and another on the wall to the right of the listening place. The room has a sloping 18' x 13' ceiling..... room is architecturally/acoustically broken up and is wide and long enough (30') to support some decent bass notes. There is significant sound absortion materilas in hidden spaces (behind pictues and over head lighting etc).
The drivers used are very special.... extremely low distortion. But compared to the Quads, exhibit no sense of compression of the dynamic range.
The best system I heard and put together was about 30 years ago. I had two refrigerator size rear loaded transmission line cabinets housing 18 inch Hartly drivers. Those were laid on thier side and on top of them sat a pair of QUAD ESL speakers. On top of the QUADs were a row of RTR ESL tweeters. All tri-amp'ed with cross-over at 300Hz and 8KHz. Electronic cross-over i made myself had variable freq and variable slope adjustment. The RTR drivers were powered from a Dyna tube amp and the signal was cap coupled direct off the tube plates (OP transformer was not used... terminated). A seperate HV supply was used for the RTR.
Extremely low distortion and very clear/transparent. From deep, deep bass to ultra-high. But I kept clipping/arc-over the QUAD midrange at 'reasonable' listening levels. I used for source material, the recordings from live recorded using R to R tapes via Revox 30ips 1/2 track recorder.
This M2 is as good or better and has unlimited dynamic range (for me).
THx-RNMarsh
The 'rocks' are made of 100% animal hair/wool. Imported from Africa
Last edited:
Unsolicited comment, department of...
Please don't take this as some sort of personal criticism, it's just my instant gut reaction based on your picture.
Bad room for dedicated listening, imo.
Speakers are too close together.
The offset to the left is problematic.
Listening position might best be with the person sitting where the glass table is.
If the listening position is where the picture is taken from, then the person listening needs to be somewhat offset to the left, which in and of itself creates imaging problems due to the difference in distance between the left wall and right wall and the different reflective surfaces.
The glass table will reflect highs.
Maybe sitting in front or at the glass table, with the speakers toed in aimed
in front of the listener (pretty much) you'd get a pretty good presentation... maybe.
Otoh, IF it sounds great, who cares!
Ok, fine.
But as far as I know consciously I really don't give a hoot what anyone else expects, or what a room full of people think or think they are hearing, or what a system or gear looks like or doesn't... any more than I am swayed by an auditorium full of people going wild over a performance. In that last case more often than not my reaction is nonplussed or less... unless of course I am blown away, and in some cases the rest of the audience isn't so.
And when it comes to this audio thing, I don't expect much, so IF I hear something great only THEN am pleasantly surprised, interested or intrigued.
Low expectations, hard to be disappointed?
It really sounds like you're taking *way* too much offense that you're being insincere. What you/I/most anyone doesn't know is what level of subconscious influence you're pulling in as well (this is universal to being human), regardless your disposition.
*I make a terrible tester inasmuch as I work on my own stuff, so proud papa syndrome, and am pretty much convinced that electronics, especially at the low levels I listen are all going to work "well enough".
And, really, I need to work on speakers/room before anything behind that. Not that I necessarily will, but at least I know what's driving the bus.
true, no one knows how much subconscious is effecting them.
I'm not being insincere, fwiw.
Not that what I am or not amounts to a hill of beans.
I'm not convinced that *anything* I make or buy is actually working "well enough".
For me it's more like those who work in painting or sculpture, the creator can see all the
imperfections, compromises, mistakes and even errors. When I manage to "create" something.
The view I take is that all things hi-fi and audio are made up of a (virtual) "list" of compromises. The goal for each person is to select and prioritize amongst that list, and try to stack up those chosen attributes as best as possible and avoid the ones that fall on the negative side of the list. It's of necessity different for each individual, although there can be (imo) common areas or choices.
The more you know about it, the better potential there is for making good/proper choices. But by the same token, that brings more awareness of the limitations and compromises.
Maybe an analogy is watching old TV shows, now in "high def" it is fairly easy to see the visual techniques and contrivances. If you know what is up, you can see a lot of them in modern shows too.
Many people, even watching on high-def don't "see" these things...
So, what does it take for enjoyment, IF you become more aware and can perceive the defects/compromises?
Right now my present system, if you came over I'd tell you that it's maybe 80% of what is "possible". To me it is just passable, "good enough" for general listening. But what I like and seek is transcendence, those times & moments when you become engaged and the sound simply is. That's the goal as far as I am concerned.
I'm not being insincere, fwiw.
Not that what I am or not amounts to a hill of beans.
I'm not convinced that *anything* I make or buy is actually working "well enough".
For me it's more like those who work in painting or sculpture, the creator can see all the
imperfections, compromises, mistakes and even errors. When I manage to "create" something.
The view I take is that all things hi-fi and audio are made up of a (virtual) "list" of compromises. The goal for each person is to select and prioritize amongst that list, and try to stack up those chosen attributes as best as possible and avoid the ones that fall on the negative side of the list. It's of necessity different for each individual, although there can be (imo) common areas or choices.
The more you know about it, the better potential there is for making good/proper choices. But by the same token, that brings more awareness of the limitations and compromises.
Maybe an analogy is watching old TV shows, now in "high def" it is fairly easy to see the visual techniques and contrivances. If you know what is up, you can see a lot of them in modern shows too.
Many people, even watching on high-def don't "see" these things...
So, what does it take for enjoyment, IF you become more aware and can perceive the defects/compromises?
Right now my present system, if you came over I'd tell you that it's maybe 80% of what is "possible". To me it is just passable, "good enough" for general listening. But what I like and seek is transcendence, those times & moments when you become engaged and the sound simply is. That's the goal as far as I am concerned.
The real paranoid would ask himself if there's someone with a West End apartment (Shaftesbury Avenue), who has a painting of your Bangkok street on his wall.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.