|
frank1203 Unregistered guest | Hi, I could really use some advice. I have been in the market for a very good Surround Sound Receiver. I have listened to several in my price range (ie: $2,000) and believe that the Rotel RSX-1067 (100 watts) has the best sound and will do well driving the Paradigm Studio 100 Speakers that I am also going to purchase. I was talking to a tech at Rotel and he suggested that the best way for me to go is to downgrade the receiver to the RSX-1056 (75 watts) and add a 130 watt/channel Power Amplifier (RMB-1075) into the mix. He told me that separates always produce a better and cleaner sound and actually if you add these two pieces together, they come to about the same price as the RSX-1067. It just appears to me that if I do it this way, my receiver is basically not powering anything (unless I add 2 speakers) to it since the Amp has capability for 5 speakers. I would appreciate your opinions on this. What is the right way to go? Thanks. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 376 Registered: Dec-04 | And indeed the receiver is just a pretty pre-amp, although an inexpensive one, by pre amp standards. I have a rotel 985 amp(with H/K receiver as pre) and it works well. If you plan on running the speakers Really hard and loud, then, yeah, the extra power is nice. However, your speakers will demand more than regular 8ohm loads, and the receiver will give a LOT more power than 'other' receivers. I have to look at the specs on the 1067, but that seems like a powerful(some would say forward) sounding combo. My speakers are Psb's, very similar to the paradigms in response and performance, though your 100's will deliver more bass(and quite well) If the dealer is willing to takr your $$$, make sure you can return, the receiver if you don't like it, and try the amp, with something else. If the dealer is good, that should be a given. Also remember that all the stuff has to run in a bit, if new, perhaps a demo receiver/speakers to try at home to save some time? My amp was used and delivered answers right away. If the pressure is there to buy and thats it, look elsewhere. A good dealer is willing to let out the good stuff, and values your opinions. Just a pair of 100's to start, or a whole 5pc set? Look around Frank, and Listen and enjoy! And dony forget the interconnects, the bill runs up pretty quickly, the receiver needs only the cdp, etc, Cheers |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 377 Registered: Dec-04 | BTW, I wanna talk to this tech guy if he is setting the prices! The amp is list(list) around 1800 in Canada. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6612 Registered: May-04 | Separates from the same company will sound better than a receiver. To most people who listen critically that is. With music sources the differences can be quite easily detected depending on what specifically you listen for. With video sources, the improvements of separates can be more difficult to notice since the soundtrack of a film is generally mixed with a difefrent intent than a symphony. Since the Rotel tech offered the suggestion, I would ask the Rotel dealer to set up a display that you could audition on a quiet afternoon. Technically there are several reasons for the separate amplifier to sound better than the receiver. However, those reasons may not translate into a real difference for you. If the dealer is worthwhile, the audition should be made available as long as you ask for a time when the store is typically not very busy. Do not expect the shop to rearrange the displays on a Saturday afternoon. You might also find some more information regarding separates and receivers in this thread: https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/159651.html |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2243 Registered: Feb-05 | Rotel RSP1068 pre/pro and RMB1075 power amp. Better than the receiver power amp combo you were looking at for about the same money. Rotel and Paradigm Reference products go together very well. Enjoy. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 379 Registered: Dec-04 | Jan, Art...Is it safe to assume that any decent company, would make better output stages in amps than in top flight receivers? Why then, are pre-amps so darned expensive as compared to receivers? And if recommended by the manufacturer, why bother with a pre-amp at all, if you just ignore the radio switch on the receiver? If matching componants are so much better, a rather cheap receiver(Rotel in my case) would(quite possibly) offer great advantages? |
|
Gold Member Username: ArtkAlbany, Oregon USA Post Number: 2247 Registered: Feb-05 | "Jan, Art...Is it safe to assume that any decent company, would make better output stages in amps than in top flight receivers?" Usually. "Why then, are pre-amps so darned expensive as compared to receivers?" Many reasons. Better parts, more care in manufacturing and on and on. "If matching componants are so much better, a rather cheap receiver(Rotel in my case) would(quite possibly) offer great advantages?" Matching perhaps but not in the same box. Anytime the power amp is in the same box as the pre performance will likely be compromised. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6619 Registered: May-04 | "Jan, Art...Is it safe to assume that any decent company, would make better output stages in amps than in top flight receivers?" We would hope so. A few companies have made top flight recivers and high end separate amplifiers. Not many have crossed the divide since most high end companies consider a receiver to be a compromised piece of equipment from the get-go. However, most high end companies didn't produce integrated mplifiers until recently. Now trying to tap into disposable income for an office system, a small system for the library or the summer vacation cottage, integrateds are a hot portion of the market now. Can receivers be that far behind? "Why then, are pre-amps so darned expensive as compared to receivers?" How expensive are discrete components compared to large scale IC's. Actually the expense of components is often the cost of the power supply and the enclosure. A dedicated power supply designed to minimize noise and maximize performance is not inexpensive. A high end enclosure with audiophile grade 1/2" thick face plate is not cheap either. When was the last time the thickness of the face plate influenced your decision concerning which receiver to buy? Appearance of performance influences many high end separates decisions. It is, in all too many cases, a large portion of the cost difference between a very good budget line and a high end product such as Mark Levinson. "If matching components are so much better, a rather cheap receiver(Rotel in my case) would(quite possibly) offer great advantages?" I'm not sure I could stretch it to "great" advantages and certainly not "cheap". Advantages, yes. Some cost and space savings. Disadvantages, certainly. As Art suggests placing all components in close proximity to the power supply is not the best route to performance. The compromises of power supply regulation within tight space constraints doesn't bode well for sound quality. And, the general layout of a receiver vs. separates is not going to minimze noise. Those are a few of the compromises a receiver genarally makes. For decades HK promised a Citation receiver that equalled the performance of their Citation line of separates. Each time they made the effort to build such a product, they found the compromises too great and the cost too close to the separates line to make the venture productive. "And if recommended by the manufacturer, why bother with a pre-amp at all, if you just ignore the radio switch on the receiver?" I'm not sure what you are suggesting here. If you want a passive pre amp section, an integrated amplifier or receiver would be the best choice since it can become a system that has known values. The use of a passive pre amp is often defeated by the need to make a universal application. The new Exposure integrated has a passive pre amp and is reported to be quite a good performer for a minimal investment in a product of that type. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 380 Registered: Dec-04 | Thanks, guys, now may I get a little more specific. The H/K I now have as a pre could be used elsewhere, so I researched a proper pre/pro.(this is where... ahh prohibitively expensive comes in). So following the lead of Frank1203, I asked the previous. Now, if I get hold of a Rotel receiver of low wattage(cost) but with dts or 5 channels anyhow, AND I defeat the high power supply or FET power at least, I might expect to minimize noise to the IC's. Now this unit will feed the 985 power amp. Might I expect a favorable result? I'm thinking yes, and the result would mean I make my mortgage payments! Or am I thrashing about like a trout in the bottom of a boat? |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6623 Registered: May-04 | " ... if I get hold of a Rotel receiver of low wattage(cost) but with dts or 5 channels anyhow ... " Obviously, no matter what you look at, low "cost" means relatively low quality parts and layout. More IC's and less power supply regulation. Yes, it would work, but it seems to be chasing, to borrow from Rep. Murtha, "a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion." It all depends on what the relative quality of the HK to the Rotel comes to and what you expect from your HT system. If I were headed down this path, I would probably be looking at the used market for the best value I could find either in a pre/pro or a decent HT receiver. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 384 Registered: Dec-04 | Well I figgur the HK is a 'decent' HT receiver, wanted to explore the matching brands route and see what shook outta the trees. Even used pre/pro are a TON o' money. Gracias, Amigo |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 409 Registered: Dec-04 | How would you rate a Musical Fidelity HTP procesor? I find a used one locally. Merci |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6630 Registered: May-04 | Don't know the product. Possibly Frank Abela would have an answer. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 739 Registered: Dec-03 | The big Japanese receiver manufacturers sell more receivers in a week (maybe in a day) than Arcam, Rotel, etc. sell all year, including their amps and preamps. The economies of scale are enormous. The cost of building a separate housing for a pre-amp and amp plus and the much larger mark-up that the high end retailer seems to require (admittedly it's expensive for these small retailers to pay rent, utilities, salaries, etc. to make a profit on small unit sales)and this accounts for much of the price. To either stay in business or make considerable money most have to sell a lot of expensive speaker wire and cables--jeez they must hate i-link and HDMI. Actually it is tough for any business when there is a paradigm shift--internet purchases in particular. Also, most of these small to medium small "manufacturers or designers" just don't have the purchasing power to buy components at anywhere near the same price as the big boys. Now I know Rotel makes solid products, particularly amps. But you could buy a more sophisticated receiver from Denon, Pioneer Elite, or Marantz than you could buy a preamp from Rotel. It depends on if you are hooking up to an HDTV, or plan to in the near future. If you are just listening to music go with Rotel. If you will be watching HDTV and need HDMI connections you should buy receivers that are so equipped. If you should ever feel that you need greater amplification, then it would be time to get an amp and attach to the receiver. But there are plenty of very good receivers with HDMI and firewire under $2,000 I would look at. Amps just pass a signal. If most amps sound the same and a few don't, you can rely on the fact that those that don't either have inferior engineering or purposefully added the euphonic distortion, which seems quite popular in the high end. If the crowding of components are creating noise and distortion more so than the separates, that will be readily apparent in the measurements. If it isn't the case then there must be a higher power putting an invisible soul into the product. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6660 Registered: May-04 | And we all want a system with "soul". Just remember Greg figures if it measures alike (and in his world they all do), then it sounds alike. Go for the system with soul and forget the numbers. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1293 Registered: Jun-05 | The passive preamp in intergrated amps have been around for along time.Creek actually started it and then Exposure,and if anyoneone has ever heard the 2 amps over the years,the first thing you would notice about a Creek or an Exposure is the imediacey and timing,and lack of smearing of notes and instruments with great fluidety with exceptional microdynamics.I deffinetly think a passive preamp is the way to go in a intergratedamp,but a receiver with a passive preamp is pretty much impossible.My next intergrated amp will be a Creek or a Exposure for those very reasons that I listed. |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 351 Registered: Feb-05 | Sorry Jan I'll have to side with Gregory. All amps should sound,or at least measure the same,provided they are not distorting or adding extra to the signal, and I'm not shouting but must emphasize"BEFORE THEY SEND A SIGNAL TO A SPEAKER". Different amps connected to identical speakers will sound radically different, and this is a fascinating result. For most people even a HTIB is good enough. I have a receiver from a "decent" manufacturer but I will readily admit that I would be much happier with seperates. It's just that my budget does not allow many thousands of dollars for an amp and speakers right now. Would I spend 50 grand on a system I could afford it?- Absolutely without hesitation but not thousands on speaker wire, that is against my beliefs and knowledge. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1298 Registered: Jun-05 | Well you better get some more knowlege,try a 50k system on the end of some cheap speakerwire and interconnects and you'll wonder why that system cost $50k. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6662 Registered: May-04 | ER - I have to say, your second and third sentences make no sense together. "All amps should sound,or at least measure the same,provided they are not distorting or adding extra to the signal ... "BEFORE THEY SEND A SIGNAL TO A SPEAKER." Obviously an amp cannot sound like anything until it is sending a signal to the speaker. Looking at numbers and oscilloscope traces is not looking at how the amplifier "sounds". I think you and I can agree on that, ER, or else you wouldn't have added your next sentence. "Different amps connected to identical speakers will sound radically different, and this is a fascinating result." And, amps which measure wattage, frequency response and THD in similar numbers, when connected to different speakers, may sound radically different. I find little to fascinate me in how this occurs. We have made a circuit and we are hearing the results of the interaction of those pieces of equipment within that circuit. (The same as when we connect the amplifier to the speaker using a "cable". That circuit change can affect the sound quality.) I just read where Peter Walker, the founder and genius behind Quad (Quality Unit Audio Domestic), once stated that all of audio engineering is just Ohm's Law with a good dose of common sense thrown in. A slight simplifcation, to be sure, but useful as a guidepost none the less. I really have no interest in beginning again a discussion where both sides stand firmly planted and refuse to budge a millimeter. My disagreement with Greg's approach to audio goes back quite awhile now. Actually, even before I ever read any of Gregory's posts. I had run into the measurement geeks long ago. One of my early audio sales jobs was located just across the street from McDonald-Douglas Aircraft. I only hope you can empathize with the numbers of EE's who would come in on their lunch hour to argue with the sales staff about the amount of phase shift in a cassette deck's permalloy playback head. ER, when was the last time you experienced an amplifier, beyond the HTIB junk, which didn't measure more or less flat response from 20-20kHz? Moreover, even the worst case scenarios of THD are inaudible today when taken at paper spec value. So what do the numbers tell us? That almost all amplifiers measure the same in a very, very simple examination on a resistive load, test bench playing sinewaves. What I have never been able to get from Greg, when he begins his "if it measures the same, it sounds the same" calls for insanity, is where do we stop measuring? How deeply do we dig to find what actually is the difference between two amplifiers with dissimilar topologies? And, how then do we apply what we see on a scope to what we will hear when that product is placed within different circuits? Of course, I understand the electrical interfaces will alter the results; actually, that would appear to be my point and not Greg's. No, I've never had a good explanation of how the "measure/sound sameness" concept of audio products works. I do agree many audio products have very basic measurements remarkably similar to one another, and, if you are only listening for frequency response and THD, many products sound remarkably similar in those areas. However, ER, your desire for a "better" system suggests you do not buy wholey into the numbers game either. "Better" components sound better and you should pick your system on something more relevant than the warranty and the feel of the remote. Those are what Gregory has told us he uses as deciding factors since, in his view, all amplifiers that measure alike, sound alike and it is pride of ownership which influences Gregory rather than hearing what sounds best. Have I got that right, Greg? I'm not trying to insult you. We've been through that already. I was just trying to clarify for ER your manner of choosing a system. With that approach to audio, I cannot agree that Greg's advice should be taken to heart. If someone else wants to use that criteria, it is for them to decide. I still prefer the system with a "soul". |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 352 Registered: Feb-05 | TW: I did't say cheap wire I merely stated that it is illogical to spend thousands of dollars, i.e. speaker wire @ $50/ft and expect this produce any noticable results. I would not disgrace a fine system costing $50k with mere lampcord. I used this amount I quoted that should surely get you into very fine audio. I would select suitable "jewelry" for the system. Jan, I guess I should clarify what I meant. I should not have said" all amps should "sound" the same. Obviously an amp cannot "sound" before it is connected to a loudspeaker. This was a poor choice of words and I apologize. What I meant was that all amps should measure basically the same before attached to a speaker load and I believe you concurred with this. Your right just about any amplifier worth the space that it occupies,save the cheapest HTIB systems, should measure basically flat in it's frequency response. You are also right I don't buy completely into the numbers game, but a measurement such as an impedence curve on a loudspeaker ,when connected to a real amplifier can be given a certain amount of credibility. I will say that a higher cost almost always equates to a higher build quality with better parts and this would be a considerable influence in my desire for a "better" system. For someone to state that they seek to have a system with"soul" seems very vague to me, sort of like a receiver that is characterized as being "bright" or "warm". If an amp or speaker for that matter, is getting things right it should be transparent in quality and preserve the quality of the source material, hear the music not the equipment. I'll agree an amplifier connected to a dummy 8Ohm resistor will not be a reliable indicator of how the amplifier interacts with real speaker loading. It's a funny thing, you can't rely solely on measurement but any perceived difference in sound will have a corresponding difference in electrical measurement. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6666 Registered: May-04 | Well, ER, how about we put it this way. I am not much on "souless" systems. With a "soul" being a somewhat indefinable quality/quantity in both humans and a group of electronic components (oh, that the Dalai Lama were a contributor to this forum), that I should wish my system to be both transparent and have a soul doesn't seem that much of a stretch to me. Yet, to my ears, I've heard far too many systems with transparency and defintion approaching that of cut crystal and yet not a whiff of a "soul". If you can define what parameters we measure to find the soul of a system, I would greatly appreciate your assistance. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 457 Registered: Dec-04 | Dalai Lama, LOL. I think he's a rather cool dude, myself. A soul, I think is a bit vague, unless we are listening to James Brown. Although no less vague than bright, warm, harsh, cool, neutral etc, as compared to amps which scope the same under a constant load. What the heck, actually. Soul will do just fine. |
|
Gold Member Username: T_bomb25Dayton, Ohio United States Post Number: 1303 Registered: Jun-05 | Eric has just turned this into a even broader topic,I ould never want a system that sounds lifeless,soul is a key part of music making if you dont think that it is,why do you even listen to music?Eric you can have transparentcy and soul,thats the ultimate way to have a great system,I would trade ultimate transparentcy,for more soul any day of the week.Maybe you need to rethink your posts Eric. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 467 Registered: Dec-04 | I stand by Jans soul definition, for lack of an audio diety, or any for that matter. Electronic soul from planet x |
|
Anonymous | Ah soul! I get it. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 471 Registered: Dec-04 | Hey look! Vooldemort has a soul after all. Now he wants to be Lukes father! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6671 Registered: May-04 | Alas, poor Bumberry had no soul as he never existed. Shame really. He was a nice old sot. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 490 Registered: Dec-04 | Un-alive and well in Anons amp. At least hees warm... |
|
Silver Member Username: EramseySouth carolina United States Post Number: 353 Registered: Feb-05 | Gentlemen you have charged me with the task of defining something through measurement that cannot be done. Perhaps Jan I should ask you what exactly is "soul"? What qualities give an inanimate object such as an amplifier"soul"? TW:What exactly should I rethink in my previous posts? I have stated only factual information other than my opinion on tremendously overpriced speaker wire, that I will bet all day long that will yield no better measurement at least in terms of R,L,C than ordinary zipcord, sometimes worse. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6672 Registered: May-04 | "With a 'soul' being a somewhat indefinable quality/quantity in both humans and a group of electronic components ... " That said, now you would like me to define what a soul is? How many volumes have been written throughout the ages trying to achieve just that goal. How many wars have been fought trying to either save another person's soul or simply bring to them a soul they didn't know they possessed? How many souls have been lost forever for lack of asking just those questions before acting? You certainly have lofty ambitions for me, ER! I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you. About the best I can do is to say we all know when we've come across a human being or a system of components which leaves the impression there is no soul to be found. The other side of the coin would be when we come across a person, system, animal, wine, meal, musical instrument, etc. that makes us more aware of our own soul than before we found that person, system, animal, etc. I am hardly a philosopher, but when we are in the presence of a soul, we have to reflect on how insignificant we can be and how great we can be. That's about the extent of my definition of a soul. My audio system manages to allow that reflection. If yours does not, then I would suggest you move on. Xmas is coming up. Try watching The Messiah through your television speakers. At least you'll have an idea what a system without a soul sounds like. |
|
Silver Member Username: Fps_deanWilliamstown, MA USA Post Number: 150 Registered: Oct-05 | You are spending enough that you can go seperates. With seperates (even with an integrated amp) there is less other stuff in the mix so you can get a purer signal... if that is always audible or not is another story. And historically, seperates have been the high end stuff as Jan said. Integrated amplifiers came out, and some companies make their high end units available as integrated amplifiers and some do not. Typically I would suggest with going with something higher wattage, even if it means a slightly cheaper model when we're talking about the 4 digit price range. |
|
Silver Member Username: GmanMt. Pleasant, SC Post Number: 740 Registered: Dec-03 | If measurements are not critical in manufacturing amps, pre-amps, and receivers--how do those manufacturers explain or replicate their designs? If it is "soul", than it must be by random product sample. Bob Carver was able to duplicate the sound of popular tube amps using solid state-very much irking the audiophiles at the double blind test. People don't like their beliefs being shattered. There had been more than a couple of dozen bias-controlled listening tests published in the popular press by the early 1990s, all of which showed that any competent amplifier device, with flat frequency response into a loudspeaker load in an acoustic space and not overdriven, is capable of delivering a sonically transparent representation of the input signal into the load and into the listener's ear. My main complaint isn't in the possibility and the reality that some amps sound different, but I believe any good engineer will tell you why the difference exists--distortion caused by a bad design or a purposeful design. Often it is as simple as clipping (inadequate power) and amp output impedances (where the rubber meets the road with the speaker). If you buy speakers that have difficult loads, the more important the amp is to make it sound its best. There are plenty of easy to drive 8 ohm speakers and even 4 ohm speakers that don't drop below 3 ohms. I believe you have said before the best amp should just be a straight wire that cleanly passes the signal. I agree. And the only way that will sound "warm" or "euphonic" is if the engineer and post production mastering put it there. The following is from Ethan Winer--an engineer who also has a recording studio. "Myth: Amplifiers based on vacuum tubes sound better than solid state designs, and a good tube preamp can even restore clarity and warmth that has been lost in the digital recording process. Fact: Both types of amplifiers can have a frequency response flat enough for audio reproduction. But modern solid state amplifiers have measurably lower distortion than any tube-based design. Most tube-based power amplifiers also require an output transformer, which increases distortion--especially at the frequency extremes. Further, solid state power amps always have a better damping factor (see Audiophile Speaker Cables above). Many people--including me--like the sound of tubes, especially in a GOOD GUITAR AMP. When driven to a point approaching distortion, tube circuits react more smoothly and with less harshness than solid state circuits. More precisely, tube distortion has a gradual onset that yields less "buzz," when compared to solid state devices that have a more clearly defined overload threshold and thus generate more high frequencies when driven to the point of distortion. Even if you prefer the sound of tubes, please understand they simply cannot restore any quality that was lost earlier in the recording process. All a tube preamp can do is add an effect that you may find pleasing. Studio monitor amplifiers should never have a "sound;" if they do, they are in error. Tube circuits can affect the sound in a way that is similar to analog tape recorders, and you may in fact find that pleasing. I won't dispute that even-order distortion can sound good, by adding overtones that are richer than odd-order distortion, which is, musically speaking, dissonant fifths. However, all distortion adds intermodulation (IM) products that are not harmonically related to the source material, and are thus decidedly non-musical." Believe it or not, I agree with much of what you have written and cited in the speaker section from Floyd Toole white papers to Rod Elliot of ESP to Siegfried Linkwitz. So I wouldn't say we disagree on everything. You just don't seem to agree with them on most amplification issues. Musically, the Soul of your system resides in a great recording, having adequate amplification for your speakers, and your speaker/room acoustics being good. Heck, Im converting my downstairs system to stereo by buying Linkwitz Orion speakers, which I have heard twice in the past 2 months in 2 locations. Blew me away-my most musical soulful non-live listening experience-and these active crossover dipole speakers are just driven by a 6 x 60 watt ATI amp. Suprisingly my wife isn't giving me grief--maybe she likes the idea of re-arranging the great room--(very large living room). |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 499 Registered: Dec-04 | OWW, I feel good, I knew that I would now. I feeeel good, It cant rock'n'roll, if it ain't got no soul! |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6677 Registered: May-04 | Gregory - For God's sake why do you always have to quote someone else when making an argument? Are you incapable of finding the correct words yourself? I've said before I cannot discuss anything when you use quotations from someone who is not present to defend nor explain their words. For nearly every point Mr. Winer makes, he leaves out three issues which would either alter or contradict what he has put in print. Really, Greg, if you want to discuss this, do it on your own. If you need to make a reference to something someone said, make it brief and back it up with your own words. I don't need three or more paragraphs of propaganda that can only go unanswered. What Mr. Winey said has virtually nothing to do with this discussion. I never made any claims for tubes "restoring" anything. To suggest that I did is very unfair on your part and borders on dishonesty. I would retort that you are doing nothing more than pulling stuff out of your butt. That is a fact. And, if you want to discuss this, can we please move past the same old tired platitudes you've over used so many times before? I always get the feeling you are reading those "everything sounds the same" articles which drill the same mantra into the heads of the supplicants over and over again. You know, that old "repeat a lie often enough and it will become an accepted truth." And, we don't want to forget the "if you are going to tell a lie, tell one big enough." So, now we're back to Bob Carver and articles from the 1990's. How many times have we been down this road? Your idea of the "popular press" is any magazine which spouts the same BS you believe. You know the ones I mean, where everything from any advertiser is a "good sounding product" and "represents a good value". Heck, you have a great room. (A very large living room.) What is that all about? "My main complaint isn't in the possibility and the reality that some amps sound different ... " Possibility and reality? I would say it is a possibility you've confused me with that bit; but that I am confused by your statement is more a reality. Gregory, if you can point to any post where I suggested the source is not where the soul of the music reproduction resides, then I will say I was mrong. But you seem to prefer placing words in my posts which I believe I never wrote. You apparently still miss the point of a system with "soul". While I have never suggested anyone must own a high dollar equipment to have a musically interesting system, I have most definitely advocated for more than "adequate" amplification. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 504 Registered: Dec-04 | The 'soul' of the system is plain and apparant. Allow me. Has the music coming to your ears ever made you think that Elvis must have been really cool? Now, has the music grabbed you, really got you on your system enough to make you stand in front of the mirror, item in hand, weilded like the King's own magic wand of a microphone, swiveling your hips, belting out 'hounddog'? The soul comes from there. If the sound can conjour you, the grey little man skulking around the halls of a major corporation, really BEING the king, so lifelike to YOU. Or wailing on Stevie Ray's guitar, stroking through little sister, and BEING there, at the breakthrough concert at Montreaux, a triumph of spirit and perseverence, feeling the love of the crowd, the power of the guitar, and being the star. If you can feel, through the power of your system, the power of the music, you may have a soul in your equipment, and a soul of your own. |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 505 Registered: Dec-04 | Or you may be Walter Mitty |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6680 Registered: May-04 | I do all that even when my system isn't powered on. Doesn't everyone? |
|
Silver Member Username: NuckParkhill, Ontario Canada Post Number: 506 Registered: Dec-04 | No, they don't apparantly. No soul. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 6683 Registered: May-04 | They're Bumberry!!!??? |