|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: I'll explain in more detail about how people change over time posted by Richard BassNut Greene on December 12, 2006 at 07:23:30:
I was reading a few other posts you made recently. You are firm in your stance to put it mildly. As are many/most of your opposers. I assume you read my response to your first post in this thread. I believe there are great systems in all camps. I wanted to get your opinion on a few things.First off, I use a system somewhat similar to Mr. Krieger. We are both Don Allen tube gear fans and I use Dons modded tube CD player, amps/pre and other items. So I know some of his tastes/preferences. I also use Fostex fullrange speakers and am a HUGE advocate of Bruce Edgar horn speakers. And Cy Brenneman tube gear. However I have also heard great sounding SS gear and listen primarily to CDs as I havent the time for vinyl, my life is just too busy for now. However I love vinyl and have a massive collection and many different tables including Dons and a VPI TNT-HR mk5. I love good analog. But I dont deny digital can sound great if not nearly as good when done right. I also believe the digital format “WILL†get even better with time.
I think all in any camp would agree, ideally one wants a large listening room, say around 15w x 20d or more (or a little less for some). Unfortunately many, like myself, haven’t this luxury. Would you not agree its easier/more realistic to go for a well implemented 2ch system when restricted by a smaller listening room? I mean, if you put a 5.1 system in a room thats say 15x15, dont you think it would be hard get any accurate and pleasing image or soundstage (again I would imagine you have some experience in this)? And “to me†if I were ever to attempt to do 5.1 on a level equal to the expectations and standards I have for my many 2ch systems, I would want a room about 30X30 or more (again after I start earning +100K a year :-) to get the kind of image and stage I can already get in my 15x15 room with my 2ch system.
I also agree that if one were to go the multi channel route, to do it properly and make it sound balanced and at its best, the same speakers should be used for all channels, aside from the sub. This creates a serious demand for proper amplification and space. I would guess you like anyone from any camp, are somewhat particular of the amplifiers used for your many speakers. Yeah Im a tube guy, and feel they are one of the best options out there when done right. However many/most of the multi-channel systems out there are from the direct radiator camp and are of somewhat low efficiency and therefore require a sizable amp to drive them with authority. Dont get me wrong there are many from my high-eff tube camp who have built multi-ch systems however I dont think they are a good example of your camp (or maybe you are too??). My point being, in the low eff speaker SS camp, in general, it usually takes more money to do it right. Now it can easily be argued that in the high-eff tube camp, it can cost FAR more, and yes that can easily be true. However as I and many others have discovered, it can be done for a thousand or less quite often, or maybe a few thousand in many cases. This is due to the DIY aspect of full range single speakers, vintage drivers, new coax speakers, home made tube amps, and the large existence of DIY builders who can put together amps and speakers that trounce commercial gear for a fraction of the cost of. Yeah there are a few in the other camp, but for the most part they are nearly always seriously expensive by most peoples standards.
And as I pointed out in that other post of mine to you in this thread, theres the issue of software. Yeah there are now more titles than ever for the these new digital formats, SACD, DVD-A (my fav highend digital audio), DVD, HDCD so on..... However compared to the already available analog (LP, Reel so on) and the ever expanding CD format...... Now again, I admit, I too think multi can do some serious sound when recorded initially with the intent. However most of my favorite music is pre such formats. Not that theres nothing new I dig nor would I rule out the greats to come.
Considering the above conditions, I can see why many are reluctant to renounce their analog (or digital) 2 channel systems for the new multi format. This wasnt some attempt to downplay multi’s many advantages, but rather to show how it would take a great deal more resources to equal that of a good 2 ch system.
For the record I too tried to built the ultimate multi so to speak. Processor, bi-amped fronts with active x-overs, servo subs.......so on. And it did sound pretty darn good. Then I found a pair of old Altec horns at a thrift store. Now Im 26 and was 21 (I think) when I found the horns so I was new to this. There was just something about their sound that stuck with me. Its been a long a interesting road since.
Im not trying to pick a fight here. Just wondering what your take is on my theory here?
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Rich I was wondering if I could get your take on this? long - 2chJunkie 12/12/0621:22:11 12/12/06 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
