What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[AnotherSpin]

From earlier contributions in this thread, I gathered that several participants retain the fondest affection for tubes. I, without question, count myself among them. For many years, I too derived great pleasure from the art of tube swapping and delighted in the inimitable, organic character of tube-based sound reproduction.

I experimented with both modern and vintage specimens, including those from legendary makers such as Mullard, Sylvania, RCA, Philips, Siemens, and the like. Comparing their sonic signatures proved endlessly fascinating, rather like conversing with living personalities, each possessing its own temperament and offering something uniquely compelling.

Yet it was the valves from Telefunken that claimed a singular place in my esteem. They stand, unchallenged, at the summit of my personal list. I recall paying a rather princely sum for a matched pair of NOS 12AT7 input tubes - more than for any others, in fact - but I harbour no regrets. Their sound was astonishingly pure and transparent, with every element precisely where it ought to be. Moreover, their longevity far exceeded the norm.

The image is from the internet, as I no longer have access to my own tubes.

[AnotherSpin]

Ohhh for God's sake close this thread    

Harry, get back here, things are getting delightfully ridiculous    

[ritter]

Well, I am left with no choice. This thread will remain locked for an indeterminate period, one that I hope is long enough to permit members to realise that:

1) Being contradicted is not an insult or a reason to feel threatened. It should be the basis of a civil discussion.
2) We can discuss and refute ideas, not other members' personalities, habits, or intentions.
3) Stirring things up just for the fun of it never leads to any good, and is actually quite childish.
3) Insults, demeaning language, and hostile attitudes are unacceptable.
4) Getting the satisfaction of being proven right, or proving others wrong, is a hopeless venture on the internet, and should not be the aim of a discussion.

Hasta la vista, vayan con Dios...

EDIT: Thread is now unlocked. Let's hope it does not have to be locked again...

[drogulus]

     Ohm does make a mini Walsh speaker that's 36' tall. It's not very sensitive (85db/w/m) so I'd have to be careful about ampage.



     It goes for $1900 a pair.

[Mister Sharpe]

Seeing AnotherSpin's picture of Telefunken tubes (even if impersonating same!) brings back many, many memories of my old Telefunken equipment, an Andante 205 with turntable, my constant college companion. It was solid state, of course, but recall the tuner was insanely capable.  True fact: my hometown in upstate NY boasted its very own Telefunken repair shop!  And when I was in Germany 15 or 16 years ago I had a discussion with some Berliners about Telefunken and there was much sadness - even a tear in the case of one of them - about that deceased and much loved firm. I felt the same.   

[drogulus]

     I have a 12ax7a (RCA NIB) sitting in front of me now. I have a 5751 in a box,too, which might be a good sub for a 12ax7. It has an amplification factor of ~70-80 much like the 12ay7 tubes Fender used in the V1 on some of the tweed amps.

[AnotherSpin]

To illustrate a point I mentioned shortly before this rather engaging thread was locked, here is one of three custom supports with ball bearings that I place beneath the streamer. The improvement in sound is quite remarkable, and one would hardly credit it without a first-hand listen. The sonic image acquires a new vitality, with a heightened sense of dimensionality and depth. Detail emerges with greater clarity, yet the overall character remains effortlessly natural.

These supports, just shy of two dozen in number, were fashioned to my own design from aviation-grade aluminium in a metal workshop some ten years ago. Over the years they have served beneath various components of my audio system, each imparting its own subtle influence on the listening experience.

[Mandryka]

This is the system I'd really like to have




The address, Crawford Passage in The City, is famous for its double yellow lines

[AnotherSpin]

This is the system I'd really like to have
[..]

There are designs, both old and new, that move away from ordinary type loudspeakers and explore the link between energy and vibration. One example is the Plasma Arc Speaker, which uses ionised gas to produce sound by modulating electrical discharges. The plasma quickly heats and compresses the air, creating pressure waves, in other words sound.

[71 dB]

Here is a no-nonsense video about Break-in in audio devices.

[drogulus]

Here is a no-nonsense video about Break-in in audio devices.

    I think break-in is a thing for guitar amp speakers which have to handle extreme conditions. I don't have any personal experience that confirms this or no. One of my speakers is 60+ years old so I guess it's broke in. The JBL D123 was a legendary mid-woofer/studio monitor in the '50s and '60s. It's a great guitar speaker, too.

[StudioGuy]

It's a real minefield for consumer's when thinking of upgrading their audio system. Buying standard, mass produced audio gear is relatively straightforward but beyond that, consumers are reliant on the audiophile community/market, which is entirely driven and reliant on audiophile manufacturers and their direct and indirect marketing (incentivised reviews, cherry-picked testimonials, etc.).

The reality of technology started becoming a serious issue for audiophile manufacturers in the 1970's; by the 1970's technology had advanced to the point where amps (for example) had not only reached the point of audible perfection (transparency/no audible artefacts) but could achieve it at ever lower cost, largely due to the introduction of solid state technology. That was an existential threat for audiophile amp manufacturers who relied on the low volume, high price/large margins business model and could not compete with the high volume, low profit margin manufacturers. Their only option was to either go out of business or effectively lie about audible performance; pseudoscience, lies of omission, implying better audible performance or even outright lying about it, along with falsely contradicting/discrediting the established proven science, etc. This is why pretty much every type of cable has audiophile versions, cables that cost a dollar to make can be sold for hundreds or even thousands of dollars to a niche market of misinformed audiophiles, where else can such massive margins be found?

This has been going on for so many years/decades that many of these marketing falsehoods are now just unquestionable facts for most of the audiophile community and has obviously distanced them from the engineers/pro audio community and the audio scientists, who they insulted, tried to discredit and ostracised. The advent of digital audio exacerbated the situation even further as the storage and transfer of digital data was already perfected by design from the outset (that's why it was invented), DACs were audibly transparent just a few years after first being released and during the 1990's, with the massive explosion and advances in chip design and manufacture, even cheap DACs were typically audibly transparent.

Today, it's therefore a minefield for consumers, there are numerous audiophile products that are touted as an improvement/upgrade which are not in fact upgrades and in some cases actually do the opposite and downgrade performance. Some of these snake oil products should be easy to recognise with a few moments of critical thought, for example the above claim of ball bearing mounts for a streamer that supposedly improves the sound but obviously a streamer does not transfer or produce sound. Other times though, the BS is far harder to spot, the marketing can be more sophisticated and far more difficult to identify as BS without a certain amount of scientific/engineering expertise.

A good rule of thumb, although not absolutely always the case, is if the products' claims are not supported by reliable evidence, objective measurements for example, then it's very likely to be snake oil. Using AnotherSpin's example again;

The improvement in sound is quite remarkable ...

Even if the improvement in sound were subtle it should be relatively easy to objectively measure/demonstrate, so a "remarkable" improvement should be trivial. Where is the reliable evidence to support the claim?

If instead of such supporting evidence there's just some flowery, prosaic descriptions of experiences/perceptions, that's as good a "give away" that it's snake oil as you'll encounter, unless you have the scientific/engineering expertise to know the claims cannot be true.

[AnotherSpin]

It's a real minefield for consumer's when thinking of upgrading their audio system. Buying standard, mass produced audio gear is relatively straightforward but beyond that, consumers are reliant on the audiophile community/market, which is entirely driven and reliant on audiophile manufacturers and their direct and indirect marketing (incentivised reviews, cherry-picked testimonials, etc.).

The reality of technology started becoming a serious issue for audiophile manufacturers in the 1970's; by the 1970's technology had advanced to the point where amps (for example) had not only reached the point of audible perfection (transparency/no audible artefacts) but could achieve it at ever lower cost, largely due to the introduction of solid state technology. That was an existential threat for audiophile amp manufacturers who relied on the low volume, high price/large margins business model and could not compete with the high volume, low profit margin manufacturers. Their only option was to either go out of business or effectively lie about audible performance; pseudoscience, lies of omission, implying better audible performance or even outright lying about it, along with falsely contradicting/discrediting the established proven science, etc. This is why pretty much every type of cable has audiophile versions, cables that cost a dollar to make can be sold for hundreds or even thousands of dollars to a niche market of misinformed audiophiles, where else can such massive margins be found?

This has been going on for so many years/decades that many of these marketing falsehoods are now just unquestionable facts for most of the audiophile community and has obviously distanced them from the engineers/pro audio community and the audio scientists, who they insulted, tried to discredit and ostracised. The advent of digital audio exacerbated the situation even further as the storage and transfer of digital data was already perfected by design from the outset (that's why it was invented), DACs were audibly transparent just a few years after first being released and during the 1990's, with the massive explosion and advances in chip design and manufacture, even cheap DACs were typically audibly transparent.

Today, it's therefore a minefield for consumers, there are numerous audiophile products that are touted as an improvement/upgrade which are not in fact upgrades and in some cases actually do the opposite and downgrade performance. Some of these snake oil products should be easy to recognise with a few moments of critical thought, for example the above claim of ball bearing mounts for a streamer that supposedly improves the sound but obviously a streamer does not transfer or produce sound. Other times though, the BS is far harder to spot, the marketing can be more sophisticated and far more difficult to identify as BS without a certain amount of scientific/engineering expertise.

A good rule of thumb, although not absolutely always the case, is if the products' claims are not supported by reliable evidence, objective measurements for example, then it's very likely to be snake oil. Using AnotherSpin's example again;Even if the improvement in sound were subtle it should be relatively easy to objectively measure/demonstrate, so a "remarkable" improvement should be trivial. Where is the reliable evidence to support the claim?

If instead of such supporting evidence there's just some flowery, prosaic descriptions of experiences/perceptions, that's as good a "give away" that it's snake oil as you'll encounter, unless you have the scientific/engineering expertise to know the claims cannot be true.

Ah, how marvellous when the sacred temple of subjective listening is stormed by the high priests of empiricism, wielding their oscilloscopes like holy relics. One can only be grateful for the reminder: if it cannot be plotted on a graph, it clearly has no business existing. By that logic, Bach, Miles Davis, and Grateful Dead must have been early pioneers of snake oil - their musical contributions tragically unverified by double-blind tests or frequency response charts.

As for the "remarkable improvement". Quite right, it should be child's play to measure. All we need is a device that registers goosebumps, emotional resonance, and the sudden compulsion to replay an entire album at 2am while contemplating the fragility of existence. I'm sure it's in development, perhaps just after the invention of a ruler for dreams.

Speaking of Bach and Miles, do you actually enjoy any music? Or is your appreciation reserved exclusively for things that come with calibration certificates?

[ritter]

Let's all please keep this conversation courteous and respectful. We know how it ends...

[AnotherSpin]

Let's all please keep this conversation courteous and respectful. We know how it ends...

As for me, the conversation with the nickname StudioGuy is over, since it makes no sense. Either he/she/they doesn't understand what he is being told, or he pretends not to. In any case, I'm not interested in continuing this circus .

[Harry]

As for me, the conversation with the nickname StudioGuy is over, since it makes no sense. Either he/she/they doesn't understand what he is being told, or he pretends not to. In any case, I'm not interested in continuing this circus .

This Studio guy is only in this thread to derail it, and he does this expertly in all respect, its best to ignore him.

[Todd]

Even if the improvement in sound were subtle it should be relatively easy to objectively measure/demonstrate, so a "remarkable" improvement should be trivial. Where is the reliable evidence to support the claim?

It's best to think of audiophile gear and associated claims as similar to various inert supplements and the associated fraudulent claims about the effects of said supplements.  While regulators will occasionally step in and force supplement removal and refunds to consumers, audiophile gear is an inane luxury product class that causes no actual harm to consumers other than to impact financial capacity.  For that reason, it is unlikely that regulators ever take action. Were regulators to impose rules requiring that all claims meet objective standards of accuracy, the entire industry would disappear overnight.

[StudioGuy]

Ah, how marvellous when the sacred temple of subjective listening is stormed by the high priests of empiricism, wielding their oscilloscopes like holy relics. One can only be grateful for the reminder: if it cannot be plotted on a graph, it clearly has no business existing.

It's hard to imagine a response that better exemplifies what I described! Misinformation, flowery prose, contradicting established facts/science and still no reliable evidence to support the claim. And to the actual false assertion: If it cannot be plotted on a graph then it cannot be audio and therefore it obviously cannot be part of an audio recording or reproduced by an audio system.

As for the "remarkable improvement". Quite right, it should be child's play to measure. All we need is a device that registers goosebumps, emotional resonance, and the sudden compulsion to replay an entire album at 2am while contemplating the fragility of existence.

The claim was a remarkable improvement in sound as the result of placing a streamer on ball bearing mounts. Neither sound nor streamers have goosebumps, emotional resonance or compulsions and so trying to measure these things is obviously nonsensical.

Speaking of Bach and Miles, do you actually enjoy any music? Or is your appreciation reserved exclusively for things that come with calibration certificates?

We weren't speaking of Bach and Miles, I was speaking of how consumers need to be wary of the audiophile market and their claims/assertions, how so many of them fly in the face of the facts/science and how the audiophile community/marketing employs falsehoods, misinformation, insults and numerous other fallacies in order to sell snake oil. My love of Bach and Miles are completely irrelevant to the points I made, as are calibration certificates.

Again, for the benefit of consumers of audio systems, the quoted response is a good example! A bit of critical thought should make the falsehoods above obvious, in addition to all the deflection from citing any reliable evidence, nearly always one of the best clues to snake oil in the audiophile world.

[AnotherSpin]

It's hard to imagine a response that better exemplifies what I described! Misinformation, flowery prose, contradicting established facts/science and still no reliable evidence to support the claim. And to the actual false assertion: If it cannot be plotted on a graph then it cannot be audio and therefore it obviously cannot be part of an audio recording or reproduced by an audio system.The claim was a remarkable improvement in sound as the result of placing a streamer on ball bearing mounts. Neither sound nor streamers have goosebumps, emotional resonance or compulsions and so trying to measure these things is obviously nonsensical.We weren't speaking of Bach and Miles, I was speaking of how consumers need to be wary of the audiophile market and their claims/assertions, how so many of them fly in the face of the facts/science and how the audiophile community/marketing employs falsehoods, misinformation, insults and numerous other fallacies in order to sell snake oil. My love of Bach and Miles are completely irrelevant to the points I made, as are calibration certificates.

Again, for the benefit of consumers of audio systems, the quoted response is a good example! A bit of critical thought should make the falsehoods above obvious, in addition to all the deflection from citing any reliable evidence, nearly always one of the best clues to snake oil in the audiophile world.

Goodbye.

[StudioGuy]

This Studio guy is only in this thread to derail it, and he does this expertly in all respect, its best to ignore him.

Really, again? Enough with the false ad hominem attacks. Contrary to your false assertion, I am in this thread to provide useful information to those looking to purchase audio systems. The only thing I've (hopefully) "derailed" is some of the audiophile marketing/BS posted and why exactly would that be so upsetting to you?