doctor_big wrote:
> So what did you decide, Philippe? I'm sure that this thread has been an
> invaluable resource.
>
> Jason
Not fully decided yet, but I received a lot of good advice (although the
thread got derailed a bit). I will certainly start with used equipment,
as recommended.
LMS 7
philippe_44 wrote:
> In the audiophile forum of LMS, where I hope people are usually
> reasonnable, what would be your advice for a good pair of speakers and a
> tube amplifier (I've always wanted to try one). Nothing extra fancy, but
> a "reasonnable" budget. Please no fights here, my question i
Mnyb wrote:
> +1000
>
> I think thats it , the hobby has gotten so weird that it scares away
> people . Think about some very music interested person goes to a hifi
> store then starts to be feed all the BS about magical cables and then
> see the price tags , they probably back out slowly and
Archimago wrote:
>
> We just want enough of a presence that newcomers to hi-fi audio can be
> at home with folks who don't embarrass their rational sensibilities and
> allow their interest to grow.
+1000
I think thats it , the hobby has gotten so weird that it scares away
people . Think about
cliveb wrote:
> OK, we're going a bit off-topic here.
>
> I wasn't sure exactly what you were saying. (I thought perhaps you meant
> that only 10% of creationists believed in the young Earth, and assuming
> that creationists are themselves a small minority, things aren't too
> bad)
>
> So I ski
bonze wrote:
> I thought all audiophiles loved jazz and the more obscure the better,
> preferably on the original vinyl.
Well I am and have been a jazz fan for over 40 years and I do have
plenty of jazz on vinyl however most of the jazz on vinyl that I own is
not original vinyl since by the time
cliveb wrote:
>
> So I skim-read the linked article to discover that 10% of *ALL*
> Americans believe in a young Earth!!!
>
10% ain't bad given how many think that the race problem was solved by
the Civil War.
>
> Almost as worrying is that only 12% believe in non-theistic evolution.
>
Bei
Archimago wrote:
> Here's an 'interesting article about the importance of how the question
> is framed'
> (http://ncse.com/blog/2013/11/just-how-many-young-earth-creationists-are-there-us-0015164).
> According to that article, the number of truly "committed" literal
> "young-earth creationists" a
Archimago wrote:
> ]interesting article about the importance of how the question is framed.
> According to that article, the number of truly "committed" literal
> "young-earth creationists" as in the earth being <10,000 years is about
> 10%.
>
> "Organic" foods of course is an unfortunate misnom
bonze wrote:
> I thought all audiophiles loved jazz and the more obscure the better,
> preferably on the original vinyl.
Partly correct...
We all love -female vocal- jazzy -standards- (like Krall, Barber,
Stanley, Pidgeon, Gardot, etc...). Yes, we all love original vinyl from
the 1960's, rarely
Julf wrote:
> Not really. A lot of Ferrari owners a) think Ferraris are actually
> better than other cars, and b) think Ferrari is a car company (as
> opposed to a brand).
>
I shall have to go for lunch with the Ferrari guy at work and see how
delusional he is. I have a feeling though that he's
ralphpnj wrote:
> In reality neither the term "audiophile" nor the term "music lover"
> works since there are lots of audiophiles who know very little about
> music (just go to any of the various high end audio shows and suffer
> through the demo music that the average audiophile listens to) and
Julf wrote:
> I think the term "audiophile" is too soiled by now. Probably "music
> lover" is closer to what you describe.
In reality neither the term "audiophile" nor the term "music lover"
works since there are lots of audiophiles who know very little about
music (just go to any of the various
Archimago wrote:
> Well. Nothing wrong with Ferraris! But when was the last time a Ferrari
> afficianado claims better MPG than a Honda Civic :confused:? At least
> they concede to the objective facts and can be proud of why they love
> their car...
Not really. A lot of Ferrari owners a) think F
Mnyb wrote:
> Horoscopes is so silly , what about newer objects that was not
> discovered in the antique ;) have any one ever had the positions of
> vesta Pluto Charon or Kerberos in their reading . Not to mention the
> probably billions of undiscovered Kuiper Belt Objects out there and the
>
Archimago wrote:
> Hence the idea of the "objectivist audiophile" is not an oxymoron as I
> believe many of us here personify... To love great sound. To be
> insightful enough to admit that maybe something I own costs way more $$$
> than is needed because I WANT IT is just fine without claims of
Julf wrote:
> We all know that people buy Ferraris for the reliability, great fuel
> economy and ample luggage space. :)
Well. Nothing wrong with Ferraris! But when was the last time a Ferrari
afficianado claims better MPG than a Honda Civic :confused:? At least
they concede to the objective fac
Julf wrote:
> We all know that people buy Ferraris for the reliability, great fuel
> economy and ample luggage space. :)
>
>
>
> It is worth the fight, but I am afraid "objectivist audiophile" will be
> the dominant viewpoint about the same time as we get rid of homeopathy,
> conspiracy theori
Archimago wrote:
> That's a good point Arny. Because the idea of valuing audio equipment as
> an "investment" bestows upon them a non-utilitarian mystique. The
> problem is that many refuse to acknowledge the main reasons why this
> stuff is expensive - they look good, impresses friends and famil
arnyk wrote:
> I sense a big confusion about the purpose of having an audio system.
>
> Some appear to judge the value of an audio system as a pure financial
> play. For them sound quality need not mean anything at all, it seems.
>
> Others judge the value of an audio system based on its abilit
doctor_big wrote:
> I simply like the tube sound.
>
> Ok, so there's a metric shit-ton of high tech, better-than-you-can-hear
> stuff in an avr, and a tube amp is point-to-point soldered garbage.
>
> In 10 years the tube amp will be worth close to its original value,
> while the avr will be
doctor_big wrote:
> In 10 years the tube amp will be worth close to its original value,
> while the avr will be worth pennies on the dollar.
>
> Isn't that what we were talking about?
Not really, no.
doctor_big wrote:
> I simply like the tube sound.
That's cool.
doctor_big wrote:
> I simply like the tube sound.
>
> Ok, so there's a metric shit-ton of high tech, better-than-you-can-hear
> stuff in an avr, and a tube amp is point-to-point soldered garbage.
>
> In 10 years the tube amp will be worth close to its original value,
> while the avr will be
I simply like the tube sound.
Ok, so there's a metric shit-ton of high tech, better-than-you-can-hear
stuff in an avr, and a tube amp is point-to-point soldered garbage.
In 10 years the tube amp will be worth close to its original value,
while the avr will be worth pennies on the dollar.
Is
Mnyb wrote:
> ...
>
> I think some have actually misunderstood the whole concept a hifi system
> con not really sound "good" it can sound "less bad" . It's not an
> additive process where you simple add more goodness with each multi
> thousand dollar purchase .
> Instead the system sounds less a
arnyk wrote:
> The above is not true, and its even less true if you consider the
> benefits of modern technology.
>
> (1) The analog preamp section of common AVRs are rarely used because
> AVRs interact largely with front end devices whose outputs are digital
> audio. Judging AVRs by their anal
jh901 wrote:
> Indeed, Jason.
>
> The pre-amp section alone of common AVRs is cheaply implemented compared
> to a stand-alone tube pre-amp.
The above is not true, and its even less true if you consider the
benefits of modern technology.
(1) The analog preamp section of common AVRs are rarely
Julf wrote:
> So which ones have you talked with?
Don't expect a list of real world names...
arnyk's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=64365
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthrea
jh901 wrote:
> Engineers who actually design audio gear for a living and who have
> decades of experience will run circles around Hydrogen worshipers...
This is unwarranted, unsubstantiated, and unwanted over here. If you
can't handle what people have to say at other forums then don't go
there.
jh901 wrote:
> Engineers who actually design audio gear for a living and who have
> decades of experience will run circles around Hydrogen worshipers
So which ones have you talked with?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' t
doctor_big wrote:
>
> Anyway, a simple way to contrast the relative values is to nip over to
> Audiogon and check how much a 10-year-old top-of-the-line AVR sells for,
> versus a 10-year-old tube amp.
>
> Old AVRs are essentially worthless. They depreciate like computers.
> Makes sense, real
doctor_big wrote:
>
>
> Old AVRs are essentially worthless. They depreciate like computers.
> Makes sense, really - who wants an AVR that only switches S-video
> signals? On the other hand, a Dynaco Stereo 70 is worth more now than
> it was when new (not adjusted for inflation, of course).
>
doctor_big wrote:
> That cheery little chap is on my ignore list, so I don't see his posts.
>
Since you are now publicly admitting that you are hiding from my probing
questions, its a clear win for the objectivists.
arn
jh901 wrote:
> Can you support your claim that "good" AVRs and modern, well regarded
> tube power amps deliver the same audible experience and hold value
> equally well?
I don't see any answerable questions. Items like "good AVRs" and
"modern well-regraded tubed power amps" are clearly in the e
jh901 wrote:
> Can you support your claim that "good" AVRs and modern, well regarded
> tube power amps deliver the same audible experience and hold value
> equally well?
That cheery little chap is on my ignore list, so I don't see his posts.
But your quote revealed one. Thanks for nothing!
An
arnyk wrote:
> False claim based on faulty accounting.
>
> At this point a good SS music player (Sansa Clip) can cost as little as
> $39.95 while the high end version of the same thing (Pono) runs about 10
> times that. In ABX testing they can reasonably expected to be
> indistinguishable.
>
>
doctor_big wrote:
> Very true. However, tube gear seems to hold its value better than solid
> state.
False claim based on faulty accounting.
At this point a good SS music player (Sansa Clip) can cost as little as
$39.95 while the high end version of the same thing (Pono) runs about 10
times
philippe_44 wrote:
> And frankly speaking, Swedish people are notably good in English while
> French are notably bad - education
There is also the issue of need/motivation - French is spoken by
something like 100 million people as a first language, and another 200
million as a second language,
Julf wrote:
> I can relate to that - as I might have stated before, English is my
> third language (the first and second were Swedish and Finnish), and I
> have pretty much lost all my German since learning Dutch (I have been
> living here in Amsterdam since 1997). It does help that my wife is
>
philippe_44 wrote:
> Yes, thank you - not being English-native makes it extra-difficult
> sometimes :(
I can relate to that - as I might have stated before, English is my
third language (the first and second were Swedish and Finnish), and I
have pretty much lost all my German since learning Dutc
doctor_big wrote:
> Very true. However, tube gear seems to hold its value better than solid
> state. Probably due to the fact that the bog-standard EL34 pentode
> circuit matured 50+ years ago, and the value is all in the transformers.
> A 20 year old tube amp is going to hold more of its origi
To refine my own post , choose speakers first . As this most of the
sound . Then pick an amp that can drive them
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeri
ralphpnj wrote:
> Although it hasn't been mentioned as yet but since you state that you
> are doing this for own enlightenment I suggest that you fully explore
> the used equipment market such as ebay and audiogon. Should it turn out
> that tube sound is not for you then hopefully you can then re
Julf wrote:
> No, I think what philippe is saying is "I don't care if it is high
> fidelity or not - if it is pleasing, it is pleasing".
Yes, thank you - not being English-native makes it extra-difficult
sometimes :(
LMS 7.7.2 - 5 radio, 3 Boom, 4 Duet, 1 Touch, 1 SB2. Sonos 2xPLAY:1,
PLAY:3,
arnyk wrote:
> That seems like a concession that if tubed equipment has audible
> distortion, then should be ignored because it is not High Fidelity.
No, I think what philippe is saying is "I don't care if it is high
fidelity or not - if it is pleasing, it is pleasing".
"To try to judge the r
philippe_44 wrote:
> This is why I meant - this is not *about* fidelity any more because with
> non-linearity, fidelity is gone
>
That seems like a concession that if tubed equipment has audible
distortion, then should be ignored because it is not High Fidelity.
If tubed gear doesn't have audi
Although it hasn't been mentioned as yet but since you state that you
are doing this for own enlightenment I suggest that you fully explore
the used equipment market such as ebay and audiogon. Should it turn out
that tube sound is not for you then hopefully you can then resell the
equipment withou
I can't speak from first-hand experience but a modestly-priced ($1000)
tube amp that a number of people seem to like is the Decware Super Zen
Triode:
http://www.decware.com/newsite/SE84CKC.html
It's very low power so you'd need to use some high efficiency speakers,
e.g. 92+ dB. Decware makes som
arnyk wrote:
> Any nonlinearity is irrelevant to your listening experience if you can't
> hear it, which is likely.
>
> Another false premise. If you can hear distortion then it has a great
> deal with fidelity, since audible distortion destroys fidelity.
This is why I meant - this is not *abou
philippe_44 wrote:
> This is not what my I meant: I wanted to say different food made of good
> quality ingredients can taste good or bad to me, but the only way to
> know is to taste.
>
That is often true for food, but it is not generally true for audio
gear.
So, you are basing your argument
And thank for all the answers with references, it will help me making up
my decision in the coming weeks
Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk
LMS 7.7.2 - 5 radio, 3 Boom, 4 Duet, 1 Touch, 1 SB2. Sonos 2xPLAY:1,
PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, JBL OnBeat, XBMC, Foobar2000, XBoxOne
(sort of
arnyk wrote:
> It is generally agreed upon based on scientific sensory evaluation that
> most if not virtually all good food tastes different, but there is no
> corresponding agreement about the SQ of good audio components, so the
> comparison that seems to be made above makes no sense.
This is
Hello fhillipe my 0.02 $ you find a reasonable speaker . Then figure if
can be driven by a tube power amp if not go solid state .
Imho in high sensitivity speakers you can find pretty flawed designs
with bad frequncy response and weird directivity . It can be some
inversy synergy here to be able t
arnyk wrote:
> Of course not, because with subjectivist's in the driver's seat,
> whatever gear I choose to evaluate is automatically disqualified.
>
>
Interesting. For the record, when I taste something fantastic I find
that my reaction is reflexive- a smile, etc. Same thing happens when
jh901 wrote:
> Have you meaningfully evaluated a highly regarded, modern tube pre-amp
> in your set-up? Tube power amp? Any of the DACs which we can't even
> discuss here from the past few years?
Of course not, because with subjectivist's in the driver's seat,
whatever gear I choose to evaluat
arnyk wrote:
> All the more reason why you should be interested in doing a meaningful
> evaluation, not a junk one.
Have you meaningfully evaluated a highly regarded, modern tube pre-amp
in your set-up? Tube power amp? Any of the DACs which we can't even
discuss here from the past few years?
philippe_44 wrote:
> Just to try if like or not the difference. No pre-conceived ideas but a
> test. At least these recent discussions motivated me to try different
> things and make my own opinion.
>
>
There are any number of pre, power, and integrated amps to consider at
various prices point
philippe_44 wrote:
> And I'm not saying that I will not at this occasion learn ABX test for
> the exact same reason to, with amusement, evaluate my own subjectivity.
> But, to continue my parallel with food, as a travel a bunch, I also try
> the local food, supposedly in good places, but not extr
SuperQ wrote:
> With a room in the 40m2 size, maybe something like this would suit you:
>
> http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/all-products/amplifiers-dac.html
>
> It's a solid-state amp, but has an optional tube buffer to add a bit of
> the "tube sound" analog noise that people like.
>
> For your
And I'm not saying that I will not at this occasion learn ABX test for
the exact same reason to, with amusement, evaluate my own subjectivity.
But, to continue my parallel with food, as a travel a bunch, I also try
the local food, supposedly in good places, but not extra fancy neither.
I smell, lo
philippe_44 wrote:
> I absolutely and fully get that. The 'test' is purely for myself, not to
> start saying loudly here and there that X or Y 'is' better because I
> 'felt' it like that.
>
>
> Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk
All the more reason why you should be interested in doing
arnyk wrote:
> I can pretty well guarantee you that whatever you do, it won't really be
> a test and it won't be unaffected by your preconceptions.
I absolutely and fully get that. The 'test' is purely for myself, not to
start saying loudly here and there that X or Y 'is' better because I
'felt'
philippe_44 wrote:
> Just to try if like or not the difference. No pre-conceived ideas but a
> test. At least these recent discussions motivated me to try different
> things and make my own opinion.
>
I can pretty well guarantee you that whatever you do, it won't really be
a test and it won't b
arnyk wrote:
> Why waste a set of good speakers on a tubed amp?
Just to try if like or not the difference. No pre-conceived ideas but a
test. At least these recent discussions motivated me to try different
things and make my own opinion.
Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk
LMS 7.7.2 -
philippe_44 wrote:
> Budget I don't have a precise idea, I just don't want to go ridiculously
> high. Room is about 40m2 and listen to classical jazz
I would say Archimago's $1000 for the amp is probably near the sweet
spot. Sounds like you don't need super-deep bass or "goes to 11" volume
level
arnyk wrote:
> Why waste a set of good speakers on a tubed amp?
Subjective preference?
"To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people" - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
philippe_44 wrote:
> In the audiophile forum of LMS, where I hope people are usually
> reasonnable, what would be your advice for a good pair of speakers and a
> tube amplifier (I've always wanted to try one). Nothing extra fancy, but
> a "reasonnable" budget. Please no fights here, my question i
Many years ago I heard a system with Audion Silver Night power amp and
Cadence electrostatic hybrids - a memorable experience.
Check it, add to it! http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/
SB Touch
darrenyeats's Profile: http://f
With a room in the 40m2 size, maybe something like this would suit you:
http://www.peachtreeaudio.com/all-products/amplifiers-dac.html
It's a solid-state amp, but has an optional tube buffer to add a bit of
the "tube sound" analog noise that people like.
For your room size, the 65w model is pro
Well, a few years ago I bought my dad an Onix Melody SP3 tube amp
(~40Wpc) for a present. It goes for about $1000 - not sure if still in
production. Here are a couple reviews:
'Audioholics review'
(http://www.audioholics.com/amplifier-reviews/onix-melody-sp3-tube-integrated-amplifier-review)
'6moo
Budget I don't have a precise idea, I just don't want to go ridiculously
high. Room is about 40m2 and listen to classical jazz
LMS 7.7.2 - 5 radio, 3 Boom, 4 Duet, 1 Touch, 1 SB2. Sonos 2xPLAY:1,
PLAY:3, PLAY:5, Marantz NR1603, JBL OnBeat, XBMC, Foobar2000, XBoxOne
(sort of)
---
philippe_44 wrote:
> In the audiophile forum of LMS, where I hope people are usually
> reasonnable, what would be your advice for a good pair of speakers and a
> tube amplifier (I've always wanted to try one). Nothing extra fancy, but
> a "reasonnable" budget. Please no fights here, my question i
72 matches
Mail list logo
