AVI ADM 9.1 has arrived!

[chebby]

Eddie Pound:
Cheb,

I'm with you on Ravilious. He is god.

Check out a documentary about him on iPlayer.

I have 2 copies of the documentary (by Alan Bennett) on DVD...

http://www.banyak.co.uk/shop-ravilious.php

I also have 2 copies of 'The English Eye'.

Do you like Chris Chapman too? ('Wild Goose and Riddon') Another Devon photographer and close friend of Ravilious.

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

chebby:Eddie Pound:

Assuming that the computer is now the source of choice the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker, from any manufacturer that specialises in these products.

A DAC/pre from a pro audio company will generally be engineered to a much higher standard and will be much better value for money. If the same product was in a Chord Electronics bling case and sold in small quantities through boutique dealers than you'd be getting the same sound for lots more money.

In regards to the speakers passive crossovers have no advantages whatsoever! And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant.

So for one to use a computer as their main source, only to plug it through several expensive legacy boxes and then add lots more distortion in the crossover, is to put it politely, counterproductive.

Eddie, you accuse all those who match their own choice of speakers and amplifiers as 'arrogant'.

"And matching the speakers and amplifier yourself is slightly arrogant."

Ever so humbly (never arrogantly of course) you tell people...

"the best HiFi system has to be a DAC/PRE and an active loudspeaker". (My bold emphasis.)

You categorise the 99 percent of hifi most commonly in use - from budget to high-end - as "legacy boxes" and describe their use with computers and DACs (presumably the popular DacMagic included) as "counterproductive" and label the products of a respected company like Chord Electronics as "bling".

You implied earlier that - by association - I am a Salisbury hippy or some kind of blinkered disciple because I am enjoying some Naim gear (including the very same CD player you praised in another thread as being one of the best you had heard for the price) despite never once in this thread making any mention of it until now.

"Chebby, You're reminding me of those hippies from Salisbury."

You cast scorn upon any who defend their choice of system on grounds of personal taste with dogmatic and somewhat offensive statements like...

"The "musical" and "emotional" arguments are always put forward by those with equipment that is technically inferior."

The last person to repeatedly make such claims could at least be partly defended on the grounds that he had his company and his livelehood to maintain. It went some way towards excusing the dogmatism and arrogance given that commercial survival was at stake. (Not a marketing approach I respond well to, but it had some justification behind the zealotry.)

Please could you explain why you are being so seemingly acerbic (and occasionally personal) about what are essentially just individual choices of home entertainment equipment?

Thanks.

Apologies to the OP. 'mikeinbrum' I actually admire what you have done.

I have seen enough personal testimony from people - who's opinions I respect - who have bought the ADM9.1's, to know that they must be pretty impressive. The problem - as ever - is the manner in which a very few choose to promote the same product by bludgeoning others over-and-over with what amounts to propaganda rather than effective persuasion. Comments that border on insult (if not against the individual then against their choices of hifi and the manner in which they choose to enjoy music).

Such a shame. If I had only ever read the positive and constructive stuff from satisifed owners, I may have even bought a pair myself by now!

Only been on here 1 year, and learn more than give , but this has to be the most dignified and eloquent posts in the light of a concerted personal attack about a very subjective topic.I doff my hat to you Chebby .

 

[the record spot]

matthewpiano:
There are other ways, Eddie, and just because they don't meet with your approval, it doesn't mean they are inferior or wrong.

Indeed and in many ways, they're better.

 

[Anonymous]

Cheb,

I have not heard of the second photographer you mention but continue to be amazed by Ravi aka photographer god.

I also didn't notice your long post on the previous page so will respond below. This could actually be an interesting discussion if we stick to the points and provide objective answers:

1. I propose that it is arrogant to make the amp/speaker match yourself because it is the most important relationship in the HiFi system and should be addressed by an electronics engineer and designer to ensure optimum performance. Is that rational?

2. If using a computer as a source than a DAC/PRE into an active speaker should be the best approach because it allows a simple system with a short signal path. Would you like a longer one?


3. In addition to the above, an active speaker is preferred because there are no known advantages of a passive crossover. Are there?

4. It is fair to describe HiFi separates as legacy systems because the mainstream now revolves around downloads. It may be expensive and time-consuming for an owner of a legacy music collection to digitise. This fulfils in part the definition of a legacy system. Fair?

5. Chord Electronics are "bling" because their casework adds cost but no sonic improvement. Does it add a sonic improvement?


6. In regards to Salisbury hippies, these are people who claim differences between NAS drives, ripping software, and mains cable, despite no evidence but forward. This might be akin to witch doctors. Are there objective differences in NAS drives?


7. Adjectives such as "musically involving" can be seen on HiFi forums in order to describe flat-earth systems that show no technical merit in comparision to a modern HiFi. Might you agree?

I hope my points are reasonable. To me they seem logical and reasonable, but I welcome disagreement from you and others in the spirit of discussion.

 

[JoelSim]

Eddie Pound:
Cheb,

I have not heard of the second photographer you mention but continue to be amazed by Ravi aka photographer god.

I also didn't notice your long post on the previous page so will respond below. This could actually be an interesting discussion if we stick to the points and provide objective answers:

1. I propose that it is arrogant to make the amp/speaker match yourself because it is the most important relationship in the HiFi system and should be addressed by an electronics engineer and designer to ensure optimum performance. Is that rational?

2. If using a computer as a source than a DAC/PRE into an active speaker should be the best approach because it allows a simple system with a short signal path. Would you like a longer one?


3. In addition to the above, an active speaker is preferred because there are no known advantages of a passive crossover. Are there?

4. It is fair to describe HiFi separates as legacy systems because the mainstream now revolves around downloads. It may be expensive and time-consuming for an owner of a legacy music collection to digitise. This fulfils in part the definition of a legacy system. Fair?

5. Chord Electronics are "bling" because their casework adds cost but no sonic improvement. Does it add a sonic improvement?


6. In regards to Salisbury hippies, these are people who claim differences between NAS drives, ripping software, and mains cable, despite no evidence but forward. This might be akin to witch doctors. Are there objective differences in NAS drives?


7. Adjectives such as "musically involving" can be seen on HiFi forums in order to describe flat-earth systems that show no technical merit in comparision to a modern HiFi. Might you agree?

I hope my points are reasonable. To me they seem logical and reasonable, but I welcome disagreement from you and others in the spirit of discussion.

Does the most expensive football team always win everything? No.

Why on earth would you let an electrical engineer choose your hifi? Surely your ears are better judges than someone elses.

Do cables make a difference? Yes in reality, no in your theory. Yes in my ears.

ÿ

ÿ

 

[the record spot]

I'm happy to provide an objective answer as long as you're prepared to accept it's come about with an element of subjectivity. It has to. Anything else is saying "it says it's good on paper here, so it must be right!". In other words, I'll like it because the white paper tells me it's good, so it must be.

I've not once yet had a reply to this question; has anyone who advocates such systems ever heard one which was good on paper and which failed to give them what they'd expected, i.e. it disappointed? Simple enough question but I'm beginning to think Fermat's Theorem was easier to respond to...

 

[Anonymous]

1. I propose that it is arrogant to make the amp/speaker match yourself because it is the most important relationship in the HiFi system and should be addressed by an electronics engineer and designer to ensure optimum performance. Is that rational?

This is point i disagree with the most. why cant I mix and match HI FI to get the sound I like? After all its me who's going to listen to it not an electronics engineer or designer......The only arrogance involved is being told what i SHOULD like.

 

[matthewpiano]

Eddie Pound:
Cheb,

I have not heard of the second photographer you mention but continue to be amazed by Ravi aka photographer god.

I also didn't notice your long post on the previous page so will respond below. This could actually be an interesting discussion if we stick to the points and provide objective answers:

4. It is fair to describe HiFi separates as legacy systems because the mainstream now revolves around downloads. It may be expensive and time-consuming for an owner of a legacy music collection to digitise. This fulfils in part the definition of a legacy system. Fair?

5. Chord Electronics are "bling" because their casework adds cost but no sonic improvement. Does it add a sonic improvement?


6. In regards to Salisbury hippies, these are people who claim differences between NAS drives, ripping software, and mains cable, despite no evidence but forward. This might be akin to witch doctors. Are there objective differences in NAS drives?


7. Adjectives such as "musically involving" can be seen on HiFi forums in order to describe flat-earth systems that show no technical merit in comparision to a modern HiFi. Might you agree?

I hope my points are reasonable. To me they seem logical and reasonable, but I welcome disagreement from you and others in the spirit of discussion.

In response to...

4. Those who value the highest quality domestic reproduction have never been 'mainstream' and I think you will find that there are many many of us out there who still rely mostly on what you call 'legacy systems'. Despite dipping my toe into the water of computer based music I still have absolutely no intentions of moving over to it as my main source and I will continue to buy CDs and LPs for my main listening.

5. The casework often doesn't improve sonic ability (although sometimes it can have the function of rejecting interference more efficiently) but many of us still like to use hi-fi kit which provides tactile and visual pleasure as well as audio excellence. The feeling of using a high quality product can be very rewarding in itself. This does, of course, mean that in some cases equal levels of performance are available for less. My championship of NAD's superb amplification is a great case in point: no glitz and glamour, just well designed and very musical products.

7. Musical involvement is THE most important factor. If it isn't musically involving I'm not interested.

I CAN see the logic behind your arguments but I think they are too black and white. Music itself is a very emotional and emotive thing and it is the single most important factor in pursuing quality audio in the home. Any reproductive process involves an element of colouration. This could be in a particular performer's interpretation of a work (it is impossible to be 100% accurate to the composer's original intentions), in the variable factors involved in the recording process, and in the peculiarities of any given replay system and (something which you white papers and technical measurements can't take full account of) the effects of the domestic space in which that replay takes place. Furthermore human ears all hear in different ways.

All of this is ultimately about the rich tapestry of humanity. As music itself is about humanity and the communication of ideas AND emotions, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

 

[Anonymous]

I so much agree with Matthew on this, but a little voice is whispering between my ears: "all this is fine and dandy, and the right music at the right moment will bring up deepest emotions even from a freebie MP3 player or a rattling old radio. But this place here has a header saying 'hi-fi', and the heated discussions here are finally about how to squeeze out the last milligram of highest fidelity from available recordings"....

And once we accept this is the "raison d'ˆtre" of this forum and a corner stone of the whole high end sound recording/reproduction industry, we have to admit that Eddie and others make fair points, in pushing for scientific proof points and objective measurements...

The "hi-fi" concept begs for measurement: is "fidelity" anything else in this context than "reproduction accuracy"?

All that said, I look for high quality music audition, pleasurable music audition, I like deep and wide soundstage, wide dynamics, and the physical feel of the highest and lowest frequencies. Not sure any of this is "hi-fi", strictly speaking...

 

[mikeinbrum]

A couple of days in and I still have a wide smile when listening to my new ADM9.1s, I suppose that's the main thing. Irrespective of discussion around theory these beauties have me grinning from ear to ear.

Hifi is like food..... many people like to add spice or condiments to their meal. Some like it just the way the chef intends it with nothing added. I've got my hifi appetite satisfied by the ADM9.1s

 

[matthewpiano]

mikeinbrum:
A couple of days in and I still have a wide smile when listening to my new ADM9.1s, I suppose that's the main thing. Irrespective of discussion around theory these beauties have me grinning from ear to ear.

Hifi is like food..... many people like to add spice or condiments to their meal. Some like it just the way the chef intends it with nothing added. I've got my hifi appetite satisfied by the ADM9.1s

But who is the chef?

The composer, the musician, the producer, the recording engineer, the company who made the various bits of recording equipment, the instrument maker?

As I've said before, the whole idea of fidelity to the recording process per se is a fallacy because that process in itself imposes character on the music (through interpretation) and the sound (through inadequacies/imprefections in the recording equipment).

As a musician, my first aim is to get as close as possible 'to the original sound'. For me, that original sound is the sound of acoustic instruments within an acoustic space. Take a piano, for example. EVERY piano sounds different, even when made by the same maker. The scientists have come up with ways of sampling the sounds of a real piano and done a reasonable job, but no digital piano in the world gets close to the sound of the real, acoustic instrument. Likewise, there isn't a recording process that can effectively capture the full resonance and sound of a concert grand and quite often it can be compromised by engineering decisions taken in the control room in terms of balance the relative levels of the various microphones and the use of pan controls to control the positioning of instruments within the stereo image.

Its easy to see things in black and white when you are dealing only with the scientific measurement of sound waves or when you are dealing with the recording and reproduction of electronic or computer generated instruments. When you are dealing with real acoustic instruments in a real acoustic space there are many grey areas and science doesn't have all the answers.

 

[Anonymous]

mikeinbrum:
A couple of days in and I still have a wide smile when listening to my new ADM9.1s, I suppose that's the main thing. Irrespective of discussion around theory these beauties have me grinning from ear to ear.

Isn't that what its all about???????

 

[the record spot]

It's fine from the user's point of view Mike & Ray, although I doubt the 9.1s are all things to all listener's and further, they won't make bad recordings sound good. So I'd be keen to hear how they translate those less than stellar discs in comparison to more coloured gear (e.g. Linn certainly used to have a very sympathetic character with some of the their kit which glossed over poor recordings). Do they then sound as enjoyable or are they pretty ruthless; I hear transparency mentioned a lot which is a good thing IMO.

Equally, they seem to need a sub, which is the rage these days, but if AVI could design the Neutron speaker which produced respectable bass for it's size, why couldn't this box perform as well without a sub too, given it's bigger, and that's allowing for the internal amp and DAC? Perhaps I'm missing something.

John Dolan made a perfectly reasonable point earlier too re: the bass floor in the boxes he uses and questioned AVI logic around this issue with reference to theirs which hasn't really been answered effectively I think. Apologies if I have that wrong, but that's my take on it. I wouldn't expect any company to draw attention to something that their product doesn't do quite as well, but I'd expect an answer to John's question and this doesn't seem unreasonable, particularly to anyone simply interested in the topic.

I just rather dislike the AVI perspective and the manner in which it's effectively saying to me, "you don't know what you're talking about"; guys, I'm not thick y'know! I don't need deep level understanding to grace an engineering science paper, but a broad description that digs down a little isn't going to pass me by.

Put it the other way round, would you like me to go over the rules and regulations surrounding pensions contracts, or the Basle I and II Accord surrounding capitlisation in the banking industry, or...no, maybe not!

I rather like Peter Comeau's approach which is to engage and educate in a straightforward and non-patronising manner. He's got years of experience, hugely respected in the industry from what I can gather and one day I might treat myself to a pair of the World Designs WD25T-EX floorstanders, assembled and build rather than the kit version!). Far more palatable; he makes you want to sit down and get interested. AVI make me want to walk away.

(Incidentally, any chance that the WD25T-EX might get a review sometime WHF Test Team?!?!)

 

[matthewpiano]

What makes me laugh is that whenever a musical argument is put forward, the 'I follow science so I'm right' brigade seem to ignore it.

Come on! If you believe the science that you propogate at least take the time to answer the musical arguments that, after all, are absolutely crucial to all of this.

Or, in some strange twist of priorities, is the science more important than the music?

 

[Anonymous]

I think the confusion here is that neutral, transparent reproduction of an audio signal is a science. Eddie has a studio and so I would assume that his objective is faithful sound. An ethos that the likes of AVI and Musical Fidelity tend to follow.

Alternatively, many people worry less about the neutrality and more about simply enjoying the sound in the given room and conditions. I've always believed that this is largely because it's very difficult and expensive to truly follow the 'studio' reproduction ethos.

Two different objectives, two different outcomes. How can any debate reconcile two different meanings into one?

 

[chebby]

igglebert:Two different objectives, two different outcomes. How can any debate reconcile two different meanings into one?

With courtesy and a little tact and acceptance that what is right for ourselves is not always the best solution for everyone else.

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:
igglebert:Two different objectives, two different outcomes. How can any debate reconcile two different meanings into one?

With courtesy and a little tact and acceptance that what is right for ourselves is not always the best solution for everyone else.

Indeed. Two different requirements of "hifi", simple as that.

 

[JoelSim]

the record spot:It's fine from the user's point of view Mike & Ray, although I doubt the 9.1s are all things to all listener's and further, they won't make bad recordings sound good. So I'd be keen to hear how they translate those less than stellar discs in comparison to more coloured gear (e.g. Linn certainly used to have a very sympathetic character with some of the their kit which glossed over poor recordings). Do they then sound as enjoyable or are they pretty ruthless; I hear transparency mentioned a lot which is a good thing IMO. Equally, they seem to need a sub, which is the rage these days, but if AVI could design the Neutron speaker which produced respectable bass for it's size, why couldn't this box perform as well without a sub too, given it's bigger, and that's allowing for the internal amp and DAC? Perhaps I'm missing something. John Dolan made a perfectly reasonable point earlier too re: the bass floor in the boxes he uses and questioned AVI logic around this issue with reference to theirs which hasn't really been answered effectively I think. Apologies if I have that wrong, but that's my take on it. I wouldn't expect any company to draw attention to something that their product doesn't do quite as well, but I'd expect an answer to John's question and this doesn't seem unreasonable, particularly to anyone simply interested in the topic. I just rather dislike the AVI perspective and the manner in which it's effectively saying to me, you don't know what I'm talking about; guys, I'm not thick y'know! I don't need deep level understanding to grace an engineering science paper, but a broad description that digs down a little isn't going to pass me by. Put it the other way round, would you like me to go over the rules and regulations surrounding pensions contracts, or the Basle I and II Accord surrounding capitlisation in the banking industry, or...no, maybe not! I rather like Peter Comeau's approach which is to engage and educate in a straightforward and non-patronising manner. He's got years of experience, hugely respected in the industry from what I can gather and one day I might treat myself to a pair of the World Designs WD25T-EX floorstanders, assembled and build rather than the kit version!). Far more palatable; he makes you want to sit down and get interested. AVI make me want to walk away. (Incidentally, any chance that the WD25T-EX might get a review sometime WHF Test Team?!?!)

Ashley certainly has a strange way of 'selling'

 

[Anonymous]

How can any HI FI sound neutral regardless of type style size active or passive flac vinyl or cd unless you have an anechoic chamber to listen to it in?

AVI might make incredibly good neutral sounding HIFI but you have to put in a room with walls furniture ect ect which all have their effect on the sound. surly this kinda negates any neutrality?

 

[matthewpiano]

garethwd:How can any HI FI sound neutral regardless of type style size active or passive flac vinyl or cd unless you have an anechoic chamber to listen to it in?

AVI might make incredibly good neutral sounding HIFI but you have to put in a room with walls furniture ect ect which all have their effect on the sound. surly this kinda negates any neutrality?

I completely agree with you.

I give up trying to open this debate up with more detailed discussion about what the term 'fidelity' relates to. There seems to be a very simplistic argument being put forward about scientific results and very little willing from those battling for science to consider the various variables that might make complete neutrality either impossible or, on some occasions, undesirable.

To put it into context, there have been many times when I've been involved in a recorded performance and then listened to the play backs (in the studio/control room) to find that the overall sound is quite different to the live event. With this in mind, the kind of neutrality that the science brigade are pushing only offers fidelity to the recording equipment and engineer's approach to the music. Surely, its the music and performance which should be the main focus??

 

[drummerman]

the record spot: ...

Equally, they seem to need a sub, which is the rage these days, but if AVI could design the Neutron speaker which produced respectable bass for it's size, why couldn't this box perform as well without a sub too, given it's bigger, and that's allowing for the internal amp and DAC? Perhaps I'm missing something...

The Neutron, even with amp-pack, is still a passive speaker and therefore probably has certain 'attributes' that make bass seem larger than it is, common with many passive speaker/amplifier systems. If I understand it correctly, it is the lack of control of the amp over the bass driver that gives that bloom/enriched upper bass or whatever you want to call it, something inherent even in the most proficient passive designs. With the ADM's, the amplifiers have been specifically designed to assert sufficient control over the drive units, without the 'sound-degrading' xover in between power amps and drive units.

I can tell you first hand that this establishes itself as slightly 'bass lite' if you come straight from a (not so well executed) passive system but it also very fast, very transparent and 'life' like, at least with voices and instruments which are easier to break down into what is realistic or not. The system can easily play back a wide variety of instruments in a live like manner as far as I could discern and even makes a fairly good attempt at double bass. It is ultimately limited by it's size and (in)capacity to move air. The sub fills in where the system rolls off. Many use them without, I'd certainly use one.

There have been a number of remarks along the lines of ... ' they may be transparent etc but are they emotional? In my opinion, on the 3 or 4 occasions when I heard them, they cover that side too. Keb Mo sounded warm, life like and thoroughly dynamic. It's been a while but thats my overlasting impression.

As regards to Ashley James, he has a 'certain' way with regards to representing his products but that does'nt take away that he is a thoroughly decent and knowledgable person. I'd urge anyone considering spending around the AVI ADM9.1's amount of money on a system to try and listen to them and forget about any comments from AVI or forum members. You won't have Ashley James living with you but you might find the only system you need for a long time. - I am in quandry in that I've listened to Naim's XS/CD5x and have to make my mind up on which system to get. Proof, if anything, that I am in no particular 'camp' regarding the technology vs. sound. Both are excellent and both are the only two systems I consider buying. I've heard a few ...

 

[john dolan]

They sound bass lite not because they are accurate but because they are bass lite.The bass they produce rolls off at 65 hz so all they produce is upper bass.The pmc active speaker of the same size the http://www.pmc-speakers.com/product.php?mode=view&pid=41&&show=spec produces bass down to 33 hz.We all keep hearing about how accurate the avi speakers are to the actual recordings but most music today is matered using pmc or atc speakers.If the customers goal is to get as close as possible to the mastered performance then buy speakers the engineer used to do the job.Im sure most people that buy a hifi though just want something that sounds nice in the home and makes music a joy to listen to.To tell those customers they are deaf or don't understand is very arrogant.

 

[the record spot]

Thanks for the reply drummerman, but John's post above kind of highlights what I was getting at.

 

[John Duncan]

the record spot:Thanks for the reply drummerman, but John's post above kind of highlights what I was getting at.

Hm? The "hopelessly coloured" one?

 

[john dolan]

JohnDuncan:the record spot:Thanks for the reply drummerman, but John's post above kind of highlights what I was getting at. Hm? The "hopelessly coloured" one?Everthing has a sound with hifi theres no such thing as un coloured.