Tannoy Precision 6.2 review

[davedotco]

This whole 'reference system' thing is, to me, just plain wrong.

The only reference is a real live performance, real music, real musicians, real world.

I don't understand how you can put any context into a review if you have no reference equipment. Without a baseline of some sort for comparison, reviews would seem even more spurious between reviewres and be less relevant.

What better way to test a speaker than to drive it effortlessly with a quality amplifier? Using anything less would compromise the potential of the speaker and give a false indication of its abilities. The same applies to any equipment.

As for real, music musicians, performances etc. for most types of music, performances are amped over PA systems and are not any reference that I'd want to emulate.

As I said above, the trick is listening to the music not the sound that it makes. There are plenty of good recording that can be used, that capture the 'feel', the 'prescence' of a live/real event and I find these invaluable.

I find that listening in this way helps tremendously and can often take crude variables, like a bright or boomy dem room, pretty much out of the equation. I appreciate that this is not normally how most people listen but it works for me.

A simple example, I often played a track that had a lenghty acoustic guitar into, on most systems it sounded crisp and clear and on the better ones so clear and pricise that I felt that even my extremely amaturish playing skills would be able to pick out the notes and play the tune.

Then on this particular ocasion I changed the amplifier and suddenly I knew, I just knew that I could practice for the rest of my life and never come close to the superbly expressive and emotive playing of the artist. The new system just made the music so much more real, the talent of the artist so much more evident, the sound had not changed one jot, but the music had.

Anyway I know I am not going to change your views on this but I thought an explanation worthwhile, a different (from the norm on here) way of doing things that has served me well.

 

[Blackdawn]

Anyway, lovely look to these Tannoys. Wish I could afford a pair. I'd like to here comparison between the Tannoy V4i, 6.2 and DC6T SE. On paper they appear to have similar specs.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

This whole 'reference system' thing is, to me, just plain wrong.

The only reference is a real live performance, real music, real musicians, real world.

Sure I know that loads of recordings do not actually consist of a real musical event, but there are plenty that do and they make the best demonstration/evaluation 'tools' possible.

I know that for many this is dificult, but you have to stop listening to the way a system sounds and learn to listen to how a system actually plays music, then you will be able to sort out the 'also rans' from the seriously good stuff.

The system doesn't play music, it reproduces the music the musicians play.

It's also a touch unrealistic to get real musicians in to provide a reference when auditioning kit. I doubt the RPO would fit into a dealers room, let alone my flat.

 

[Overdose]

That's all very well for an individual who is trying out kit to buy, but my points were in relation to a review system as used by the WHF mag.

For example, how can a reviewer asses a selection of speakers if there is no one amplifier being used?

When assesing anything, always the extraeneous variables are removed first to isolate what is on test, ie providing a reference.

Anyway, I think we are talking at cross purposes, as it seems that you are talking about what to listen for when reviewing and I'm talking about the conditions of the review.

 

[MakkaPakka]

Yes thats true they spent nearly a £1m on room treatment, so the products may not sound anything like that in a average living room.

There is no way they spent anything like that much just on the acoustic treatment. I think the £1m figure scrapes together every bit of the cost involved of putting all the rooms together.

The WHF demo rooms do sound pretty flat but the main advantage is that there's a ton of space around the speakers and a lightweight panel ceiling. No nasty reflections.

 

[Electro]

This whole 'reference system' thing is, to me, just plain wrong.

The only reference is a real live performance, real music, real musicians, real world.

Sure I know that loads of recordings do not actually consist of a real musical event, but there are plenty that do and they make the best demonstration/evaluation 'tools' possible.

I know that for many this is dificult, but you have to stop listening to the way a system sounds and learn to listen to how a system actually plays music, then you will be able to sort out the 'also rans' from the seriously good stuff.

Well said Dave :clap:

This is very good advice and the very best way to choose the right equipment for a natural sounding musical system .

The more real it sounds the more pleasure it gives . :cheers:

 

[davedotco]

That's all very well for an individual who is trying out kit to buy, but my points were in relation to a review system as used by the WHF mag.

For example, how can a reviewer asses a selection of speakers if there is no one amplifier being used?

When assesing anything, always the extraeneous variables are removed first to isolate what is on test, ie providing a reference.

Anyway, I think we are talking at cross purposes, as it seems that you are talking about what to listen for when reviewing and I'm talking about the conditions of the review.

I understand what you are saying and it is most certainly the sort of technique used by some of the more concientious revewers, it does provide a degree of consistency and of course will give repeatable results. In a setup like that at WHF, it is quite difficult, given the time constraints and volume of traffic, to do anything much differently.

What I have a problem with is that the 'reference' is just another piece of hi-fi equipment and that bothers me, somehow we need to be able to reference hi-fi playback to real music but for obvious reasons this is difficult to do if you are just trying to compare the 'sound' that is being made.

I find it much more enlightening to see if I can hear differences in how the music is being played and the 'involvement' of the musician. One of the reasons I like live recordings, musicians invariable play with more gusto and intensity in front of a audience and this, for me, helps tremendously in evaluating how well a system captures a musical event.

A word of explanation, a live recording in this context is something that is played in 'real time' with the musicians all together in one place and playing to an audience, even if this is in a studio and the 'audience' is no more than a handful of people in a control room.

 

[CnoEvil]

I find it much more enlightening to see if I can hear differences in how the music is being played and the 'involvement' of the musician. One of the reasons I like live recordings, musicians invariable play with more gusto and intensity in front of a audience and this, for me, helps tremendously in evaluating how well a system captures a musical event.

.

Once again DDC, I find myself agreeing, and have argued the same thing on here many times.

The only thing that I "measure" when assessing a system is - does it realistically convey, on an emotional level, what the musicians are trying to communicate.

If this is what drives the buying decision, and you listen to a decent variety of kit (Active/Passive/Valve/ Class A, AB, D / IB, TL, Ported, Electrostatic etc), you will arrive at a system that gives pleasure due to how it sounds, rather than how it looks, how much it costs, or how many stars it has.

 

[davedotco]

I find it much more enlightening to see if I can hear differences in how the music is being played and the 'involvement' of the musician. One of the reasons I like live recordings, musicians invariable play with more gusto and intensity in front of a audience and this, for me, helps tremendously in evaluating how well a system captures a musical event.

.

Once again DDC, I find myself agreeing, and have argued the same thing on here many times.

The only thing that I "measure" when assessing a system is - does it realistically convey, on an emotional level, what the musicians are trying to communicate.

If this is what drives the buying decision, and you listen to a decent variety of kit (Active/Passive/Valve/ Class A, AB, D / IB, TL, Ported, Electrostatic etc), you will arrive at a system that gives pleasure due to how it sounds, rather than how it looks, how much it costs, or how many stars it has.

One of the issues I have (related to the above) is that I find a lot of recordings to be lacking in the very criteria we are discussing.

So many modern recodings are played in a manner that the musicians are 'uninvolved' with the music, and often with each other, that once you get past the impressive sound of the multi-layered, multi-overdubbed mix there is a actually little of consequence left.

I used to have a really big issue with this, paying good money for discs (vinyl or CD) that actually had little or no musical merit beyond the impressive presentation really got to me, another great reason for using Spotify.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

I understand what you are saying and it is most certainly the sort of technique used by some of the more concientious revewers, it does provide a degree of consistency and of course will give repeatable results. In a setup like that at WHF, it is quite difficult, given the time constraints and volume of traffic, to do anything much differently.

What I have a problem with is that the 'reference' is just another piece of hi-fi equipment and that bothers me, somehow we need to be able to reference hi-fi playback to real music but for obvious reasons this is difficult to do if you are just trying to compare the 'sound' that is being made.

I find it much more enlightening to see if I can hear differences in how the music is being played and the 'involvement' of the musician. One of the reasons I like live recordings, musicians invariable play with more gusto and intensity in front of a audience and this, for me, helps tremendously in evaluating how well a system captures a musical event.

A word of explanation, a live recording in this context is something that is played in 'real time' with the musicians all together in one place and playing to an audience, even if this is in a studio and the 'audience' is no more than a handful of people in a control room.

You need a reference, mate, and you'll find the serious mags have one. Reviewers need to judge, and you can't do that unless you have a standard.

P.S Thanks for defining what a live recording is for us all. We'd be in the wilderness without you, ddc

 

[davedotco]

I understand what you are saying and it is most certainly the sort of technique used by some of the more concientious revewers, it does provide a degree of consistency and of course will give repeatable results. In a setup like that at WHF, it is quite difficult, given the time constraints and volume of traffic, to do anything much differently.

What I have a problem with is that the 'reference' is just another piece of hi-fi equipment and that bothers me, somehow we need to be able to reference hi-fi playback to real music but for obvious reasons this is difficult to do if you are just trying to compare the 'sound' that is being made.

I find it much more enlightening to see if I can hear differences in how the music is being played and the 'involvement' of the musician. One of the reasons I like live recordings, musicians invariable play with more gusto and intensity in front of a audience and this, for me, helps tremendously in evaluating how well a system captures a musical event.

A word of explanation, a live recording in this context is something that is played in 'real time' with the musicians all together in one place and playing to an audience, even if this is in a studio and the 'audience' is no more than a handful of people in a control room.

You need a reference, mate, and you'll find the serious mags have one. Reviewers need to judge, and you can't do that unless you have a standard.

P.S Thanks for defining what a live recording is for us all. We'd be in the wilderness without you, ddc

Morning Al, in 'sarky' mode today I see.......

The reference is real music Al, not another piece of hi-fi kit. You need to understand the significance of that before we can move the discussion forward.

The words about live recordings were in response to an earlier post that seemed to suggest that all live recordings involve nasty PA systems and rubbish acoustics when this is simply not the case.

I have been posting and pottering around this morning to a recording of the Dexter Gordon Quartet. Recorded for Blue Note by Rudy van Gelder in 1962 this is a studio recording with each track played 'live' and recorded in one take straight to tape. Though not recorded in a live venue, this is a 'live' recording by my criteria outlined above. I thought it was worth making this clear.

 

[DocG]

The reference is real music Al, not another piece of hi-fi kit. You need to understand the significance of that before we can move the discussion forward.

The words about live recordings were in response to an earlier post that seemed to suggest that all live recordings involve nasty PA systems and rubbish acoustics when this is simply not the case.

I have been posting and pottering around this morning to a recording of the Dexter Gordon Quartet. Recorded for Blue Note by Rudy van Gelder in 1962 this is a studio recording with each track played 'live' and recorded in one take straight to tape. Though not recorded in a live venue, this is a 'live' recording by my criteria outlined above. I thought it was worth making this clear.

I'm so with you on both these items, Dave! Well said! :cheers:

 

[Blackdawn]

The specs suggest the Tannoy 6.2 is easy to drive. Would a warm sounding amp sound the best with these speakers?

 

[altruistic.lemon]

No, it's the hifi kit, and how well it reproduces the original sound. You still have to have a reference, mate, or anything goes.

There's not many of us who can be present at original recordings, you know, so that simply cannot work as any sort of reference.

 

[Blackdawn]

An amp such as the Roksan Caspian M2 would be a good fit for these Tannoy speakers?

 

[davedotco]

No, it's the hifi kit, and how well it reproduces the original sound. You still have to have a reference, mate, or anything goes.

There's not many of us who can be present at original recordings, you know, so that simply cannot work as any sort of reference.

Going on about the 'sound' again........ :wall: It's not about the sound, it's about the music.

You really don't 'get this' do you?

 

[davedotco]

An amp such as the Roksan Caspian M2 would be a good fit for these Tannoy speakers?

You need to have a listen and find out. It's a lot of money to spend on kit that does not suit you, the Tannoys are big sounding speakers, in a domestic room they need plenty of space and an amplifier with good control.

Get the dealer to play you Charlie Mingus 'Ah-hum'. Its on Spotify.

Recorded in 1959 it is one of the greatest Jazz records ever made, see if the system tells you why.

 

[FennerMachine]

Don't you need both?
You need 'reference' level kit so you know you are getting the best out of the kit being reviewed but maybe also lower or mid level kit as a reference to compare the item with likely partnering equipment. You need something as a 'reference point'.
You also need to use good recordings and enjoyable music (even if not well recorded) to hear how well it reproduces actual music.

 

[BigH]

The problem I have with a reference system is what if the speakers don't suit the amp.? then the amp is no good? If they had only used the ATC with the Arcam A19 amp which was not a great match then it would not have got such a good review. Also I don't think they do use the same ref. system all the time, I seen several different systems quoted in reviews. Also why play all different sorts of music how does that compare when using different system, it all seems a bit inconsist to me.

 

[FennerMachine]

If WHF use several different systems then do they use the 'reference system' for that – a reference point – and then try other equipment also to see how it performs under various circumstances?

 

[spiny norman]

If WHF use several different systems then do they use the 'reference system' for that – a reference point – and then try other equipment also to see how it performs under various circumstances?

 

[Overdose]

The problem I have with a reference system is what if the speakers don't suit the amp.? then the amp is no good? If they had only used the ATC with the Arcam A19 amp which was not a great match then it would not have got such a good review. Also I don't think they do use the same ref. system all the time, I seen several different systems quoted in reviews. Also why play all different sorts of music how does that compare when using different system, it all seems a bit inconsist to me.

I seem to remember a list of the equipment used and I recall Bryston being mentioned. I'm pretty sure that whatever is used it would (should) be a lot less pedestrian than the A19. The idea of a reference is to provide a very high standard set of equipment that should just get on with their respective jobs and not hamper the equipment on test.

 

[FennerMachine]

If WHF use several different systems then do they use the 'reference system' for that – a reference point – and then try other equipment also to see how it performs under various circumstances?

LOL!!!

 

[davedotco]

If WHF use several different systems then do they use the 'reference system' for that – a reference point – and then try other equipment also to see how it performs under various circumstances?

Check out this for a basic description of how WHF do what they do.

http://www.whathifi.com/how-we-test

It is my understanding that different systems are used but the reference system is just that, a point of reference. I have been told that all hi-fi reviews are done in a group context and that the published results reflect this.

I may not agree with their results but I think WHF are to be commended on their systematic and consistent approach, considering the number of components that they have to deal with.

 

[altruistic.lemon]

Good to see you finally coming round to accepting the point of having a reference system, ddc :cheers: