advertisement


Which component has the biggest effect on the sound?

According to Linn, the Source is in the Speaker now. So, that's that then.

The "it's all down to the room/speaker interaction" is as hopelessly rabies as any other ideology-driven delusional mental state. Yes, if you move your system from a well-furnished 2x3m room into a 12x20m glass and metal architect's pad the sound is going to change, but I've moved systems from room to room and the basic tonality of the system remains the same. The room has its influence, sure, and it's best to minimise the bad effects a room can provide, but it's not all.

Let's put it another way. I find B&W speakers boring. I find them boring in big rooms, small rooms, bright rooms, dull rooms, treated rooms, the works. I find them boring on the end of a range of electronics too. In the few times I've listened to them 'blind' (however that has transpired) I've thought to myself 'what a drab, dull sound'... only to discover a B&W speaker being played. The rare occasions I have found myself almost being able to stay awake in the presence of a B&W loudspeaker, there is almost always an Exposure or a Naim amplifier involved. It's not enough to make me want to continue the listening experience for longer than is necessary, but at least it means I don't feel the warm embrace of Hypnos immediately on exposure to the sound.

I wait with something almost exactly unlike baited breath to be disabused of this position, but I reckon I can conclude that I don't like B&W speakers. Not, I don't like B&W speakers in this room or that room... I don't like B&W speakers, irrespective of the room.

So, what possible room/B&W speaker interface could make me warm to B&W's drab sound? If the answer is 'none', this whole 'all you need to do is get the room/speaker interaction right' has some very serious holes in the storyline. Because the room is inherently subservient to the sound of the speaker.
 
Have to strongly disagree with that I'm afraid.

Any competent loudspeaker with have a fairly linear FR of +/-2db over it's working range.

The room will often result in frequency response aberrations of three to five times that and will therefore be the main arbiter of tonal balance and perceived detail retrieval - particularly when you take into account that in most cases over 70% of what you hear comes via the rooms walls and ceiling - not direct from the speaker.

A suck out in the mid to upper bass, often brought about by the first and second nodes of two room dimensions coinciding can make even a 15" Tannoy sound anemic. A speaker that rolls of at 45 hz will sound superb in a room that's 14' x 20' but will be troublesome in one that's say 11' x 13'.

If you know the maths, and the area you are likely to be putting your speakers, it's pretty easy to read specs and judge whether a particular model will be suited to the room. If you are computer literate you can use CARA of course.

But the room is crucial to tonal quality as that is the result of frequency extension, distortion components and spectral balance, and not IME, of pixie dust or drive unit material (although the latter is tied to the distortion components).
 
No treated room will make a speaker you don't like because of its tonal qualities or on/off axis performance etc sound good .. but no speaker , whatever it's qualities will sound good in a rubbish room.. so if you want to evaluate the speaker and get the best out of it and the system , the room comes first.
 
dave said:
No one said they based their business on performance alone.

Forgive me if I don't easily buy into the possibility that an 80 pound CD player will go head to head with the ISIS. Sure, it's possible, just like it's possible there's an extraterrestrial sitting in my back yard right now watching "Are You Being Served?" reruns....just not likely.
Click to expand...

You're forgiven Dave.
It took me a while for it to sink in, before I sold on my Isis which was sat there gathering dust as the £80.00 S/H CDP provided more engaging music.
This gear is out there, go and find it out for yourself if you have an itch.

You had better check that those pesky aliens in your back yard haven' t tapped into your gas and electric, for their own comfort and entertainment.
 
Evil Emperor said:
According to Linn, the Source is in the Speaker now. So, that's that then.

The "it's all down to the room/speaker interaction" is as hopelessly rabies as any other ideology-driven delusional mental state. Yes, if you move your system from a well-furnished 2x3m room into a 12x20m glass and metal architect's pad the sound is going to change, but I've moved systems from room to room and the basic tonality of the system remains the same. The room has its influence, sure, and it's best to minimise the bad effects a room can provide, but it's not all.

Let's put it another way. I find B&W speakers boring. I find them boring in big rooms, small rooms, bright rooms, dull rooms, treated rooms, the works. I find them boring on the end of a range of electronics too. In the few times I've listened to them 'blind' (however that has transpired) I've thought to myself 'what a drab, dull sound'... only to discover a B&W speaker being played. The rare occasions I have found myself almost being able to stay awake in the presence of a B&W loudspeaker, there is almost always an Exposure or a Naim amplifier involved. It's not enough to make me want to continue the listening experience for longer than is necessary, but at least it means I don't feel the warm embrace of Hypnos immediately on exposure to the sound.

I wait with something almost exactly unlike baited breath to be disabused of this position, but I reckon I can conclude that I don't like B&W speakers. Not, I don't like B&W speakers in this room or that room... I don't like B&W speakers, irrespective of the room.

So, what possible room/B&W speaker interface could make me warm to B&W's drab sound? If the answer is 'none', this whole 'all you need to do is get the room/speaker interaction right' has some very serious holes in the storyline. Because the room is inherently subservient to the sound of the speaker.
Click to expand...

This is so true!

The problem with B&W speakers is they are slooooooow except on the end of Naim or Densen IME. No room is going to do anything about their inherent lethargy that has bugger-all to do with the objectivists' obsession with FR.

A coherent system will sound great in all but tbe shittiest of rooms just as an accomplished live pianist would.

Tony needs to call this site The Round Earth Forum for that is what it has become.
 
Steven Toy said:
This is so true!

The problem with B&W speakers is they are slooooooow except on the end of Naim or Densen IME. No room is going to do anything about their inherent lethargy that has bugger-all to do with the objectivists' obsession with FR.

A coherent system will sound great in all but tbe shittiest of rooms just as an accomplished live pianist would.
Click to expand...

This is just simply hogwash I'm afraid. I can take your Tannoys Steven and make then sound utterly anemic and disjointed. And Tannoys are less prone to that than most.

An accomplished pianist could sound truly painful in the wrong room. B&W are diametrically opposed to your Tannoys in that they are wide dispersion monitors with less colouration that tubes really can't cope with.

There's again plenty of evidence to suggest you would enjoy them under the right circumstances and with the right amplification.

I do hate it when people make sweeping generalisations about loudspeaker manufacturers. They've heard say two models at shows and think they can pin a "house sound" on everything that company has made in half a century.

Without an appropriate room, even the very best loudspeakers are reduced to a confused noise - the two need to work in tandem in order to produce really exceptional results IMHO.

Steven Toy said:
Tony needs to call this site The Round Earth Forum for that is what it has become.
Click to expand...

You mean people are starting to discover the truth and denounce conventional wisdom that has proven to be incorrect?
 
All this guff about 'sources' derives from the same species of semantic cock-up that labeled computer transports 'servers', but not NAS drives.

The speaker is the source.

Equally, for a variable percentage, the room (reflected sound) is the source - that's the business end of what you're actually listening to. That's why 'source first' actually holds.

A turntable or digital player is one end of a single entity - the playback system - that has no meaningful distinctions within it.
 
ItemAudio said:
All this guff about 'sources' derives from the same species of semantic cock-up that labeled computer transports 'servers', but not NAS drives.

The speaker is the source.

Equally, for a variable percentage, the room (reflected sound) is the source - that's the business end of what you're actually listening to. That's why 'source first' actually holds.

A turntable or digital player is one end of a single entity - the playback system - that has no meaningful distinctions within it.
Click to expand...

Sorry , but in the context of this thread this post is meaningless and Im not sure what you are saying .

a turntable is one end of a single entity!!! wtf ? This seems to imply these items have no influence on the final sound .
 
merlin said:
This is just simply hogwash I'm afraid. I can take your Tannoys Steven and make then sound utterly anemic and disjointed. And Tannoys are less prone to that than most.

An accomplished pianist could sound truly painful in the wrong room. B&W are diametrically opposed to your Tannoys in that they are wide dispersion monitors with less colouration that tubes really can't cope with.

There's again plenty of evidence to suggest you would enjoy them under the right circumstances and with the right amplification.

I do hate it when people make sweeping generalisations about loudspeaker manufacturers. They've heard say two models at shows and think they can pin a "house sound" on everything that company has made in half a century.

Without an appropriate room, even the very best loudspeakers are reduced to a confused noise - the two need to work in tandem in order to produce really exceptional results IMHO.



You mean people are starting to discover the truth and denounce conventional wisdom that has proven to be incorrect?
Click to expand...


Absolutely spot on, why would B&W loudspeakers be slow!
they are not the most sensitive loudspeakers and require an amplifier that drives
them properly.
Keith.
 
Gerald said:
Sorry , but in the context of this thread this post is meaningless and Im not sure what you are saying .

a turntable is one end of a single entity!!! wtf ? This seems to imply these items have no influence on the final sound .
Click to expand...

It's central to the thread. If Linn intended 'source first' to mean the turntable is the most important thing in the system, or even that - chronologically - you should buy the turntable first and 'build a system around it', it was surely indefensible on both counts.

But, strictly, the 'source' is the speaker/room. And, strictly, the system is one thing, not a series of divisible or unrelated boxes: each stage is important. Bur practically, nothing else matters if the speaker/room is ruinous - because that's the window through which the system is perceived. Get it wrong, and it's like putting a pinhole lens on a pro MF digital camera: it's a waste of high-spec tech.
 
merlin said:
This is just simply hogwash I'm afraid. I can take your Tannoys Steven and make then sound utterly anemic and disjointed. And Tannoys are less prone to that than most.

An accomplished pianist could sound truly painful in the wrong room. B&W are diametrically opposed to your Tannoys in that they are wide dispersion monitors with less colouration that tubes really can't cope with.

There's again plenty of evidence to suggest you would enjoy them under the right circumstances and with the right amplification.

I do hate it when people make sweeping generalisations about loudspeaker manufacturers. They've heard say two models at shows and think they can pin a "house sound" on everything that company has made in half a century.

Without an appropriate room, even the very best loudspeakers are reduced to a confused noise - the two need to work in tandem in order to produce really exceptional results IMHO.



You mean people are starting to discover the truth and denounce conventional wisdom that has proven to be incorrect?
Click to expand...

I did say "all but the shittiest of rooms."

I also said "except on the end of Naim or Densen."

There is no "truth" in audio. There is absolutism in some hobbyists though.
 
ItemAudio said:
It's central to the thread. If Linn intended 'source first' to mean the turntable is the most important thing in the system, or even that - chronologically - you should buy the turntable first and 'build a system around it', it was surely indefensible on both counts.

But, strictly, the 'source' is the speaker/room. And, strictly, the system is one thing, not a series of divisible or unrelated boxes.
Click to expand...

I remain confused as to your position . And I have a certain sympathy for Linns position in respect of analogue .

All people have finite resources and time . In compiling a system I am at a loss to understand your position upon the allocation of resources .
 
Gerald said:
I remain confused as to your position . And I have a certain sympathy for Linns position in respect of analogue .

All people have finite resources and time . In compiling a system I am at a loss to understand your position upon the allocation of resources .
Click to expand...

I appended a clarification to the post you quoted, but I'll try again . . .

'Source first' was right . . . if 'source' was intended to mean 'speaker/room' (which it should), and 'first' = 'most important'.

The source of what you hear, physically, is the delayed vibration of transducers and reflective surfaces - not air shifted by the needle's scratch. While turntables are important, they can't transcend the concrete bottlenecks of the speaker/room. So, no, I don't have much sympathy for Linn's 1970's marketing!
 
ItemAudio said:
I appended some clarification to the post you quoted, but I'll try again . . .

'Source first' is right . . . if 'source' means 'speaker/room' (which it should), and 'first' means 'most important'.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking of course, 'source' means recording; the finest system in the finest room is useless without it.
 
ItemAudio said:
I appended a clarification to the post you quoted, but I'll try again . . .

'Source first' was right . . . if 'source' was intended to mean 'speaker/room' (which it should), and 'first' = 'most important'.

The source of what you hear, physically, is the vibration of the speaker/room, not the scratch of the needle.
Click to expand...

Okay , now I understand -

so I have a PT anni , Ive got 1025 to spend on speakers and a cartridge , do I spend 1000 on speakers and 25 on ATE 95E and or 595 on benz micro and 425 on speakers ?

no need to answer , there is for me only one answer and it highlights your position is flawed in my opinion .
 
Steven Toy said:
A coherent system will sound great in all but tbe shittiest of rooms just as an accomplished live pianist would.

Tony needs to call this site The Round Earth Forum for that is what it has become.
Click to expand...

Some systems touted as being 'coherent', 'about the tune' etc rate amongst the worst hyped-up, unnatural and thoroughly amusical I have ever heard in my life. I'd not wish to listen to a whole track on them, let alone a whole album.

I'd be delighted were pfm simply viewed as a decent, credible and sensible audio forum. I'm certainly not looking to push any specific ideology or agenda here other than maybe a priority towards the vintage, second hand and DIY aspects of the hobby. The site was initially built on a 'free Hi-Fi' concept (i.e. buy wisely and you'll not lose much if any money when you sell) and that remains my attitude today. I just buy sensible tried and tested audio kit and have little if any interest in flavour-of-the-month nonsense or foo. Aside from a couple of distractions here and there it's what I've always done really.

PS IMHO you are in a rather weak position to argue about 'source first' etc as you have but a single source and I've never heard you discuss different CD masterings etc. This is where the smart money is - there vastly more difference between say a Ron McMaster and RVG Edition Blue Note CD than you'll get in a whole lifetime of faffing around with foo plug doilies or whatever in a nodding-dog shop environment. This is real audible and measurable difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top