The sign post up ahead, you've just entered the Didactically Zone....Rod Serling lives!!!! |
HAL, open the pod bay....HAL!!!!! |
Didactically, you just stated, "You all carry on without me (as if I ever had to be here for this)". Does this mean we can take off our hip-waders, as we won't have to trudge through any more of your manure? |
What is the power rating of your amp at 4 ohm impedance? The amp must also be STABLE at 4 ohms. I used a Spectron 1 with a Sonic Frontiers Line 3 tube preamp. The Spectron 1 is a class D switching amp, so it produces 500 wpc at 4 ohms, is VERY small (about the size of a thick laptop computer), and only draws 20 watts at idle, so it can be left on permanently. Remember, the chief complaint against the Maggie 1.6's is a lack of base, which usually results from inadequate power. The 1.6's need mondo power to achieve good bass! Use a tube preamp as well with the Spectron 1. |
Didactically, you state,
"A majority of 'audiophiles' are out of their tree, I don't care how much they spend. A total lack of science is the first clue. We are talking about electronics here. There has to be some, if not mostly, science, which is provable, right."
Are you implying that there is NO difference in I/C's, speaker cables, and power cords? Are you also claiming that the amp with the lowest distortion specs is the best sounding one? |
Actually, I think that high end audio has much in common with boating. There are many different styles of boats; all will do things differently. Each boater/audiophile will have different needs and different biases. Some people want pounding base, others want midrange sweetness and clarity, while others want a high frequency response to the moon. I also want a seamless presentation throughout the frequency range. This is usually a tough challenge for a hybrid electrostatic or planar driver mated with a conventional dynamic woofer. I enjoy the sound of tubes over transistors. I have been to 3 CES/The Show in Las Vegas, and I can walk into a room, and without looking at the gear, determine whether it's a tube or transistor system over 90% of the time. And tubes usually have MUCH more distortion than transistors!
Didactically, you seem to be chanting some kind of parroted manta that you've cloned from alleged gurus rather than insightful comparisons. Your dogma about "true fidelity" is laughable! Underpowered amps have ruined far more speakers via clipping, than overpowered amps frying speakers. Your statement, "I believe the only reference for what is 'best' in recording and playback is the live music in the environment in which it is recorded, or 'true to the original'... ", is also paradoxical. ANY electronic instrument run through a mixing board, and processed is not "original". And you would need to duplicate the physical dimensions and construction of the recording studio, as well as duplicating the entire amplification chain and identical model of speakers used in that particular recording studio! Furthermore, fidelity changes will occur at the mastering studio as well.
Assuming a perfect and simple mix using 3 microphones and no further processing or enhancement during the ENTIRE recording chain of a performance using ACOUSTIC INSTRUMENTS, where is reality? Is it in the orchestra pit, front row, or center of the hall? Do you listen at the actual performance hall levels? We can be talking about 105-110 dB peaks here!
You also mention the SHUR ER2 headphones as "reference models". While they might be, I would be highly suspicious of this designation, due to the low cost, and lack of mention of this model by the audio press and Agon members. You also fail to acknowledge an amps rise time/slew rate and phase shift (figures that are sometimes not easy to come by) instead using distortion figures (although you are quite right about a wide power bandwidth) as the quantifying measurement of an amps quality. An amp with ulta-low distortion can sound like crap if done incorrectly with gobs of negative feedback. You also state, "Of course with dipole (ELS, Planner/ribbon, and open baffle) designs, acoustic room treatment devices are hardly needed..." FALSE! Speaker design type does not correlate to room treatment requirements.
If you are personally happy with your sound system, then I congratulate you, and wish you many years of blissful listening. But I find that your advise is based upon incomplete and selective technological readings rather than years of actual solid listening experiences. |
Didactically, listen more and talk less! I went back to read your posts, and some things are evident. You have a great command of the English language, and express yourself quite eloquently. Unfortunately, most of your post are a tiresome repeat of the same themes:
1) You are a disciple of Seigfried Linkwitz, and any other theory or opinion about high end audio is HERESY!
2) Distortion figures and bandwidth are the only measurements of an amp's quality. The Halfer DH-200/220, for the money, is the best amplifier ever produced!
3) Any speaker that is not a dipole is inferior.
4) Your mantra and holy chant is 'true to the original'. I don't have the slightest idea what this means [reread my post of 9/16...reread it carefully!] You might also want to read about pure class A amplification vs. class A/B amplification, single ended vs. push-pull, notch distortion, and phase inversion.
5) It is obvious that you have far more THEORETICAL OPINIONS, which have been postulated by others, than actual listening experiences. Spend some money and attend an audio show, so you will finally hear the difference between THEORY, and the real world of musical listening.
6) As your experience grows, you will be able to offer relevant and germane advice specific to the question, and not merely responding by rote. You ignores many variables that others recognize, but you have turned a blind eye (ear) to these. Some of you statements are so ludicrous as to be embarrassing.
Again, enjoy your music, and your system, and don't be surprised if your theoretical babbling soon gives way to listening in the real world of high end audio as you grow in this hobby. |
Didactically, my only concern is that another audio neophyte, such as yourself, would take your advice, when it has become clear that you have no credibility. Questions were asked of you, regarding your opinions and experience. You answered neither. Instead, you respond with your standard mantra and drivel, revealing a brainwashed mind of an inexperienced audio cultist. You have attacked a wide range of fine audio products and design philosophies. You are one of life's most dangerous creatures, someone who prefers to "baffle them with bulls**t", rather than "dazzle them with brilliance". |
Didactically, no one wants to stifle your freedom to express yourself here. The problem confronting members is that we don't understand what in heck you're talking about!!!! You don't answer questions posed to you, and your responses have reached the point of being an incomprehensible rambling of a philosophical nature. Perhaps you feel that you have discovered some great hidden truth about audio and audiophiles, but you are actually coming across as someone who is a painfully ignorant novice and cannot shed any light on your premises, or clarify any statement that would educated us "unbelievers". I would consider myself to be an intelligent audiophile for one simple reason; the more that I learn, the more that I realize how little I actually know! AGAIN, LISTEN MORE, AND TALK LESS!!!! |
Didactically, what is curious, is if there exists any financial relationship between you and Siegfried Linkwitz. His website is prominently mentioned in many of your IDENTICAL posts on any and all subjects. Are you really a COMMERCIAL member? Have we at last unmasked that famous genius Siegfried Linkwitz? Why is it that I smell "shill"?!!! |
Or maybe you are actually UNABLE to answer anything! Hey, Reverend Jim, I want my Guyana grape Kool-Aid...NOW! Didactically, here is a website for you:
http://www.rickross.com/groups/jonestown.html |
Apparently, you haven't understood my posts, because your cultist's mentality prohibits any deviation from the blind loyalty fawned upon your audio god, Siegfried Linkwitz. You have created a paradox that pertains to your phrase "true to the original". I also noted several other problems concerning your theories regarding "audio truth", which I then posted on your system thread. You addressed none of my observations. Instead you responded that I was angry, and should focus attention on my past life experiences, which resulted in my anger. I guess that in your mind, this is an audio related observation
So once again, I posed several questions, all audio related, on your system thread, which you have yet to answer. Here is one of those relevant questions which reveals a flaw in your theory. I am posting it here, for you to answer, so that we all might glean some knowledge and clarification of your position. Ready?
2) One of your dogmas states that ultra-low distortion is the only way one can get sound that is "true to the original". Is a linear frequency response also necessary for "true to the original" reproduction? How can your "reference" Shure Earbuds, which have 3 noticeable frequency peaks (according to Siegfried Linkwitz) possibly be "true to the original" if the reference transducer's output does not match the input?
A simple question in logic. We're waiting.........
While we wait (probably in vain) for your answer, the correct word to use is "implying" not "inferring" in your question posed to me, "Are you inferring that I have not made my position clear?"
Yes, that is exactly what I am implying! |
