Upgrade?

[Overdose]

But a good amp can transform speakers - but I guess you didn't read up into the link I put up

I read some, but I was assuming an amp that was capable of properly driving the speakers. Consider also, that a bad amp can transform speakers too.

Therefore all things being equal, providing an amp is capable enough, any sonic traits should be minimal (any colouration is, after all, distortion), with the largest variable in sound quality being the speakers.

Recording quality will obviously affect the sound of the end result, but it should be considered a constant in the context of this discussion.

So back to the topic, what does constitute an upgrade?

 

[BenLaw]

Hi Overdoes,

I agree with you that neutrality is the ultimate goal for faithful reproduction of the source. The reason I think that you're not getting a satisfactory answer to your question is that many people don't agree with this; they like their music to be coloured in one way or another. Each to their own, but someone with that goal is going to have a different idea from you of what an upgrade is and how to achieve it.

I would say ATC give you a good idea of what constitutes an upgrade with your priorities. With their pro pedigree they seek a flat frequency response with minimal distortion. In their high end actives, they use the same tweeter, and the same mid-range unit, the best such unit produced. As you get larger actives, you get larger and more bass drivers. This allows for greater low end extension, which makes things sound 'deeper', gives better dynamics, makes things more 'effortless' and also allows you to concentrate on the mids more.

To broaden the idea, an upgrade is something which gets you closer to neutral. An upgrade would be a more neutral speaker, more neutral components, a more powerful amp, to drive the speakers better, and room treatment to prevent the room affecting acoustics.

All IMO of course.

 

[BenLaw]

It's a subject that can tie you up in knots. If I had a 3rd law (which I don't), it would be that real is always accurate, but accurate isn't always real. So what do I mean by that bit of b*l!*cks? Well, if a sound is life-like then it has to be accurate (ie to the real thing); on the other hand, it can be "accurate" to the recording, which may be badly mastered and not sound in the least real. Neutral vs Natural. :~

And, much as I respect your knowledgable and interesting posts Cno, if this is an argument for colouration over neutrality, it indicates our different philosophies. I think we agree the goal is as much as possible to be faithful to real life. IMO this can be let down in the recording / mastering as well as by the kit. I don't see how kit can consistently 'correct' bad recording / mastering. That would only work if poorly recorded material were poorly recorded in precisely the same way each time. The only way to be life-like, as far as I can see it, is for an accurate recording, reproduced by accurate kit. Otherwise you just colour everything in the same way.

Of course, if this is considered to sound 'natural' then it is great that the music is being enjoyed

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I would say ATC (...) mid-range unit, the best such unit produced. (...)

where did you find out about it?

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

I think we agree the goal is as much as possible to be faithful to real life. (...) The only way to be life-like, as far as I can see it, is for an accurate recording, reproduced by accurate kit. Otherwise you just colour everything in the same way.

and what would be considedred as accurate? I've heard of many amps (usually, but not always tube) which measure bad and sound very faithful to real life. on the other hand, you can hear of even more cases of kit measuring very well but when playing music they don't sound like anything special. which one is more accurate?

and there's even more fun with spepakers. I've recently seen many frequency response graphs. some of them belong to speakers being cherished and venerated by many members of this forum as sounding "neutral". and yet those graphs resembled more a rollercoaster line than a flat line. on the other hand there can be found speakers which exhibit nearly ruler flat freq response even in in-room situation and such can be considered by many to sound "cold".

I would say that everybody should stuff all those technical data sheets where the sun doesn't shine and take their best recording of unamplified music with them to demo. if it sounds real with given equipment that's the only thing that matters, doesn't it? oh and BTW. one must be accustomed to how unamplified life instruments sound like if this experiment is to work out.

 

[noogle]

if it sounds real with given equipment that's the only thing that matters, doesn't it? oh and BTW. one must be accustomed to how unamplified life instruments sound like if this experiment is to work out.

Not sure realistic sound matters - I think its about the buyer getting the sound they like. I've previously deliberately chosen speakers that were warm-sounding rather than "accurate" as they made poor recordings sound acceptable.

 

[CnoEvil]

It's a subject that can tie you up in knots. If I had a 3rd law (which I don't), it would be that real is always accurate, but accurate isn't always real. So what do I mean by that bit of b*l!*cks? Well, if a sound is life-like then it has to be accurate (ie to the real thing); on the other hand, it can be "accurate" to the recording, which may be badly mastered and not sound in the least real. Neutral vs Natural. :~

And, much as I respect your knowledgable and interesting posts Cno, if this is an argument for colouration over neutrality, it indicates our different philosophies. I think we agree the goal is as much as possible to be faithful to real life. IMO this can be let down in the recording / mastering as well as by the kit. I don't see how kit can consistently 'correct' bad recording / mastering. That would only work if poorly recorded material were poorly recorded in precisely the same way each time. The only way to be life-like, as far as I can see it, is for an accurate recording, reproduced by accurate kit. Otherwise you just colour everything in the same way.

Of course, if this is considered to sound 'natural' then it is great that the music is being enjoyed

What was I saying about knots?

My comments were slightly facetious and over-simplistic, but the underlying message was there. Oldric in his post took a lot of words out of my mouth.

I would argue that every element of any system introduces colouration in some form, so it's often a matter of selecting your poison.....for me that's realism, while not worrying about how that's achieved.

Have you ever had the opportunity to listen to something like the MF AMS series? IMO.It sounds like a layer of grey fog has been lifted off the recording (no crossover distortion), which when added to the amazing transient response (nature of class A), gives a window on the music that I'd never witnessed before.

So whose philosophy is right?.......nobody's and everybody's (I just happen to think mine is more right than most! )

Cno

 

[dannycanham]

If you swallow the garbage in the magazines:

"We would rate this £700 player 5 stars even if it was twice the price"

"up until now you would expect this performance only from kit at twice the price"

"absolute bargain"

This item was 5 stars and flawless 6 months ago, but now we are going to rate it 4 stars and tell you the negatives that existed 6 months ago type tactic.

You would expect every purchase to be an upgrade. Encouraging that view keeps the hi fi industry going which is good for the magazines. Getting people who have already bought good hi fi to go out and buy more good hi fi. The problem is that after reading twice the price reviews for 20 years it seems strange that a £300 player sounds like a £300 player and a £1000 player sounds like a £1000 player. At a doubling of quality per price every 6 months my new £300 player should at least sound as good as a £164, 000, 000, 000, 000 player from 1990. Yet is doesn't even sound like £1000 kit from 1990.

To me an upgrade is one of two things:

Buying kit that is better suited to you, through increased education of audio kit and understand of what you enjoy and what component complementation you enjoy.

Buying kit that is genuinly a step up in component quality.

 

[dannycanham]

The problem with being obsessed with accuracy is that you can place microphones right next to each hand of say the guitarist in a studio with a very low noise floor. You can then pick up the sound of every finger press and every plectrum scrape.

Then at home you can get systems designed to pump this detail above the noise floor of a standard living room. Rather than being able to barely hear this detail with your head where the guitarists hand is in an environment that is acousitcally damped, you can clearly hear this detail sitting 3 metres away on your sofa.

In some ways being able to pick up all this detail is accurate. In some ways it is a very very long way from accurate. You can use words like neutral and detailed and faithful to the recording all you want, but at the end of the day it is the overall layering and composition of sounds that is important. When you are sitting on your seat do you enjoy what gets to your head? That is it.

 

[BenLaw]

2 good posts, thanks Danny

The problem with being obsessed with accuracy is that you can place microphones right next to each hand of say the guitarist in a studio with a very low noise floor. You can then pick up the sound of every finger press and every plectrum scrape.

Then at home you can get systems designed to pump this detail above the noise floor of a standard living room. Rather than being able to barely hear this detail with your head where the guitarists hand is in an environment that is acousitcally damped, you can clearly hear this detail sitting 3 metres away on your sofa.

I agree, which is why I think quality mastering first is vital (including not having anything improperly prominent in the mix), followed by faithful reproduction of the quality recording.

You can use words like neutral and detailed and faithful to the recording all you want, but at the end of the day it is the overall layering and composition of sounds that is important. When you are sitting on your seat do you enjoy what gets to your head? That is it.

Agreed Which is why I've no problem with Oldric's and Cno's different philiosophy I will respond to some of their points tho:

I would say ATC (...) mid-range unit, the best such unit produced. (...)

where did you find out about it?

Find out about the unit? General research. Best mid-range unit? My own opinion based on experience and research, and in happy agreement with people like Dave Gilmour, Doug Sax, Chuck Ainlay, John McBride etc etc

and what would be considedred as accurate? I've heard of many amps (usually, but not always tube) which measure bad and sound very faithful to real life. on the other hand, you can hear of even more cases of kit measuring very well but when playing music they don't sound like anything special. which one is more accurate?

I’m not sure I can accept this argument given the reliance on your own ears. And I know you like the tube sound. And ‘not sounding special’ is obviously as subjective as it can get.

and there's even more fun with spepakers. I've recently seen many frequency response graphs. some of them belong to speakers being cherished and venerated by many members of this forum as sounding "neutral". and yet those graphs resembled more a rollercoaster line than a flat line.

on the other hand there can be found speakers which exhibit nearly ruler flat freq response even in in-room situation and such can be considered by many to sound "cold".

Which speakers are you referring to which are venerated as neutral but measure badly? I would be interested to see the graphs, if you’re able to link. Recent ATC graphs I’ve seen (I think the only speakers I’ve been talking about in this context) measure well and, to my ears, sound good.

I would say that everybody should stuff all those technical data sheets where the sun doesn't shine and take their best recording of unamplified music with them to demo. if it sounds real with given equipment that's the only thing that matters, doesn't it? oh and BTW. one must be accustomed to how unamplified life instruments sound like if this experiment is to work out.

I can’t say I’ve ever used data sheets to base a hifi purchase on, it just happens that my tastes coincide with traditional monitor qualities. I also couldn’t say data sheets are irrelevant tho, and I don’t think recording engineers would agree with you. I agree one must be familiar with unamplified instruments / voices, although even then it’s pretty rare that what you hear won’t be at least affected by room acoustics.

Have you ever had the opportunity to listen to something like the MF AMS series? IMO.It sounds like a layer of grey fog has been lifted off the recording (no crossover distortion), which when added to the amazing transient response (nature of class A), gives a window on the music that I'd never witnessed before.

Unfortunately I’ve not heard the MF amps, although they look superb I wish I had more time to listen to some hifi other than my own but things are very busy for me at the moment. Have you listened to ATC’s actives? They are Class A up to any sensible volume level and, with a quality source, give a similar experience to the one you describe

I would argue that every element of any system introduces colouration in some form, so it's often a matter of selecting your poison.....for me that's realism, while not worrying about how that's achieved.

I still don’t see how one particular colouration, or inaccuracy in reproduction, which some might describe as ‘warmth’, others ‘realism’, can be a solution to all forms of poorly recorded music. My choice of poison gives me what I consider natural yet exciting reproduction. Interesting debate and glad we both enjoy our own kit

 

[CnoEvil]

Have you ever had the opportunity to listen to something like the MF AMS series? IMO.It sounds like a layer of grey fog has been lifted off the recording (no crossover distortion), which when added to the amazing transient response (nature of class A), gives a window on the music that I'd never witnessed before.

Unfortunately I’ve not heard the MF amps, although they look superb I wish I had more time to listen to some hifi other than my own but things are very busy for me at the moment. Have you listened to ATC’s actives? They are Class A up to any sensible volume level and, with a quality source, give a similar experience to the one you describe

I would argue that every element of any system introduces colouration in some form, so it's often a matter of selecting your poison.....for me that's realism, while not worrying about how that's achieved.

I still don’t see how one particular colouration, or inaccuracy in reproduction, which some might describe as ‘warmth’, others ‘realism’, can be a solution to all forms of poorly recorded music. My choice of poison gives me what I consider natural yet exciting reproduction. Interesting debate and glad we both enjoy our own kit

I've never listened to active ATCs (only passive ATC-50 Anniversery - I think) and would be intrigued to do so. I have heard a fair number of amps that have claimed x amount of watts in class A, but none of them sounded like the real thing.

Well recorded music sounds good on most systems, so a system that makes the less well recorded stuff (and there's a lot of it) sound great, is far more versitile......and there's no way of knowing for sure that it's the more coloured.

For me, I would rather put any recording on and enjoy it, than have to back off the volume, with my face screwed up, but happy in the knowledge that it's accurate.

Cno

 

[BenLaw]

I've never listened to active ATCs (only passive ATC-50 Anniversery - I think) and would be intrigued to do so. I have heard a fair number of amps that have claimed x amount of watts in class A, but none of them sounded like the real thing. Well recorded music sounds good on most systems, so a system that makes the less well recorded stuff (and there's a lot of it) sound great, is far more versitle......and there's no way of knowing for sure that it's the more coloured. For me, I would rather put any recording on and enjoy it, than have to back off the volume, with my face screwed up, but happy in the knowledge that it's accurate.

The Anniversary edition are lovely looking speakers Do you know what was driving them? I would be interested to hear your views on the ATC actives, as someone who has lots of experience of class A amps.

I'm sure you've not read anything in my posts to suggest I have to back off the volume or have my face screwed up or that I base my enjoyment of music on some theoretical knowledge. That does come across as rather dismissive Happily, my system allows me to enjoy my music, at any volume level I'm in the mood for (subject to company and neighbours ) and listen to the music, not the system. And, of course, I think it's widely accepted (it was certainly stated in the WHF review of the active 100s) that lower distortion allows you to listen louder, and for longer without fatigue. It sounds to me like we both enjoy our music, through our kit, just that our tastes are a bit different

 

[CnoEvil]

BenLaw, apollogies for coming across as dismissive, as it was certainly not my intention. I was referring to myself, as I'm hyper sensitive to any harshness, forwardness or brightness. IMO. Primare would not lead to the traits I've mentioned; though I'm not convinced by their move to Class D.

I heard those speakers at a hifi show. There was decent Naim amplification and ATC's integrated involved. To me they sounded good rather than great and better with ATC amplification. Shows in hotel rooms aren't the ideal place to get a propper assessment - especially on the first day. I'm told most of the rooms sounded better on the second day.

The sound that I enjoyed most at the show, came from the Audio Note room. My second favorite system consisted of DCS Debussy + AMS35i + Focal Scala Utopia.

I can't give a meaningful view on ATC actives until I hear them. The only decent actives that I've heard to date are £28k worth of Linn Klimax. They sounded a lot better than the passive version - but so they should.

I enjoy reasoned debate, and never wish to give the view that I have all the answers - except in jest.

Cno

 

[BenLaw]

BenLaw, apollogies for coming across as dismissive, as it was certainly not my intention. I was referring to myself, as I'm hyper sensitive to any harshness, forwardness or brightness. IMO. Primare would not lead to the traits I've mentioned; though I'm not convinced by their move to Class D. I heard those speakers at a hifi show. There was decent Naim amplification and ATC's integrated involved. To me they sounded good rather than great and better with ATC amplification. Shows in hotel rooms aren't the ideal place to get a propper assessment - especially on the first day. I'm told most of the rooms sounded better on the second day. The sound that I enjoyed most at the show, came from the Audio Note room. My second favorite system consisted of DCS Debussy + AMS35i + Focal Scala Utopia. I can't give a meaningful view on ATC actives until I hear them. The only decent actives that I've heard to date are £28k worth of Linn Klimax. They sounded a lot better than the passive version - but so they should. I enjoy reasoned debate, and never wish to give the view that I have all the answers - except in jest. Cno

No worries Cno, you have a good record of being light hearted rather than fanning the flames of confrontation I love the look of and have heard many good things of DCS but haven't had the pleasure yet myself. I also like the Focals that I've heard from the lower end of the range. While I'm guessing they may not be your thing, I suspect you'll appreciate the qualities of the ATC actives, I'd say they achieve what they set out to I'm also not convinced by Primare's move to class D, and it's a shame that an amp as good as the i30 will disappear Still, I've heard mixed reviews of the i32 and would like to hear it myself to make up my mind.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[CnoEvil]

<
No worries Cno, you have a good record of being light hearted rather than fanning the flames of confrontation I love the look of and have heard many good things of DCS but haven't had the pleasure yet myself. I also like the Focals that I've heard from the lower end of the range. While I'm guessing they may not be your thing, I suspect you'll appreciate the qualities of the ATC actives, I'd say they achieve what they set out to I'm also not convinced by Primare's move to class D, and it's a shame that an amp as good as the i30 will disappear Still, I've heard mixed reviews of the i32 and would like to hear it myself to make up my mind.

Cheers,
Ben

Like ATC, Focal are an open window on what goes before them.... I have heard them sounding really well, but also terrible. You are right though, I would never buy a pair; I prefer the sound of the Kef Ref range (also used in recording studios).

The first chance I get, I will make a point of getting a listen to some active ATCs as they do sound interesting.....hopefully at this years show.

Good Luck and Goodnight

Cno

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

wow, that was some post Ben Law.

Find out about the unit? General research. Best mid-range unit? My own opinion based on experience and research, and in happy agreement with people like Dave Gilmour, Doug Sax, Chuck Ainlay, John McBride etc etc

I was asking about the mid-range unit. sorry if it wasn't clear. I don't want to question your or other people's opinions on ATC's driver. I'm sure it's preety awsome. but the problem with mid-range units is that they are only that - mid-range units. they need woofers and tweeters to cover full range. so in separation they might be wonderful but how they work in team is what matters. so the important thing is how a speaker equiped with given drivers performes. to make matters worse 3-way speakers are way more dificult to make than 2-ways, provided we talk about passive designs, due to problems related to crossover network design. in active systems many of the difficulties relating crossover designs vanish.

anyway, eveybody who knows anything about making speakers will tell you that the best speakers are such that have the least drivers and possibly no crossover. of course these requirements are impossible to meet today so you will not find any universal full range speakers (by saying universal I mean doing all things speakers right, i.e. extension, flat freq response, fast rise/ fast dumping, predictable and easy impedance curve for instance. however, incidentaly I've recently found out about one driver that nearly solves all that problems. so in that light I think it might be a better mid-range unit than the ATC's. it's Manger drive unit. what it does right. it's (nearly) a full range unit, usable freq response is from some 100Hz to some 30kHz. it's not a piston-like movement drive unit,s o there's no problems with EMF and consequentially with overshooting. very low distortion. fast rise time and fall time. and easy impedance curve.

so, this Manger transducer is basically why I raised my question as it does what ATC's mid-range unit and even (a lot) more.

I’m not sure I can accept this argument given the reliance on your own ears. And I know you like the tube sound. And ‘not sounding special’ is obviously as subjective as it can get.

and what's wrong with tube sound? so far my experience tells me that using tubes in voltage amplification stages brings more good than bad. that's true that tubes measure worse than solid state devices for distortion levels but maybe there's something right about what Lavardin says about solid state "memory distortion". so far tube gear sounds much more transparent and clear than any SS gear I owned or heard. and it's far from sounding mellow or warm. in fact it's very dynamic when needed or very suble when it's called for.

as for subjective views relating to listening. that's true that everybody has their own preferences, however, those preferences tend to go in common direction, otherwise there would be no consensus in hi-fi and every bit of kit from different manufacturers would sound completely different. but blind tests show that it's more than often impossible to distinguish between 2 different amps. so that means manufacturers tend to produce something that at least tries to reach a certain goal. sometimes it might be trying to reach ultimate faithfull presentaion and sometimes mass market acceptance (but it's another story). that's why it's important IMO how gear sounds like and not only how it measure. measurements only tell part of the story.

Which speakers are you referring to which are venerated as neutral but measure badly? I would be interested to see the graphs, if you’re able to link. Recent ATC graphs I’ve seen (I think the only speakers I’ve been talking about in this context) measure well and, to my ears, sound good.

I think ATC's are very good. I've seen only ATC SCM 11s and they measure well so I presume it can be only better up the ladder. the ones I was referring to were especially Linns and PMC DB1s. Monitor Audio are usually good. ProAcs are very good too (especially monitors). and reference monitors from KEF are very good too. Meridian active speakers are very good too. for graphs see Stereophile web site if you want to.

I would say that everybody should stuff all those technical data sheets where the sun doesn't shine and take their best recording of unamplified music with them to demo. if it sounds real with given equipment that's the only thing that matters, doesn't it? oh and BTW. one must be accustomed to how unamplified life instruments sound like if this experiment is to work out.

I can’t say I’ve ever used data sheets to base a hifi purchase on, it just happens that my tastes coincide with traditional monitor qualities. I also couldn’t say data sheets are irrelevant tho, and I don’t think recording engineers would agree with you. I agree one must be familiar with unamplified instruments / voices, although even then it’s pretty rare that what you hear won’t be at least affected by room acoustics.

I might have gone a bit too far with this statement. what I mean is that most of us should trust their ears most of the time when making decisions as we are so unskilled and unexperienced in electric and electronic engineering that we can't make informed decisions based on technical info provided by manufacturers alone. first of all it's scarse. those few figures relating to THD, freq response, noise level is not enough to know how the machine would work in the end. furthermore, many mass market manufacturers deliberately fasion ther appliances in such a way so it's not standing too far out from accepted norm (for instance THD value ralely is higher than golden 0.05% no matter what). another crucial thing is topology used and power supply design. no manufacturers provide diagrams. and even if they would would you know how to read them and what conclusions this analysis would give you?

another unknown to me is the fact that there are manufacturers who defy logic and fashion and create devices totaly "wrong" form other experts perspective. and yet those devices create beautiful music. for instance Audio Note. their amps measure bad. speakers maybe even worse, compared to peers. they don't upsample/ oversample 16 bit material and they use tubes! but find me a peason who in presence of an all AN gear would say it sounds wrong? maybe there's still more to this world than we know.

 

[BenLaw]

wow, that was some post Ben Law.

Likewise Oldric I enjoyed reading your post, interesting stuff, thanks

 

[oldric_naubhoff]

wow, that was some post Ben Law.

Likewise Oldric I enjoyed reading your post, interesting stuff, thanks

thanks