You are not logged in. Please login or register.
But one should expect to get some flac if one goes into a science based forum
Ahem, this is an engineering-based forum, not science- based.....;)
and it's flak, = slang, - anti-aircraft shellfire,
not flac, = free lossless audio compression.
just saying ........... 
It's all in the mastering, chaps, but before you write off tables as crapola, listen to these two files -- a needle drop of a 45-RPM Japanese pressing of Cannonball Adderly's Autumn Leaves as played on a 50-year-old record player and the modern CD release of the same recording converted to a .wav file.
The unfortunate reality, from a digital/HDD perspective, is that a lot of music being mastered and remastered today for CD and downloads is done poorly. Music being released on audiophile LPs labels, on the other hand, is getting the royal treatment.
Joe
I feel like I've stumbled into a meeting of the inquisition and am trying to explain that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe!
But it is absolutely laughable that there are people here who think that an iPod will outperform a Linn Sondek into a matched system.
It won't.
I'm not saying this out of ignorance; I have an iPod 60gb and Etymotic earplugs. It sounds great but to paraphrase Dirty Harry "an iPod should know its limitations".
Ok let's try a different angle. Forget the iPod for a second. Do you accept that the best CD-player or digital music streamer in the world will outperform your Linn turntable? Ok, good. Then back to the iPod. Obviously you already know that you can load it with lossless files (perfect copy of the original in the true sense of the word) and that Wadia and Onkyo (and others?) make docks that output the digital signal directly. Connect to the best DAC in the world. What do we get?
You claim you're not coming to this from ignorance but still seems to me you can't break away from the idea of an iPod loaded with crappy quality MP3s and driving crappy earphones from its built in amp. You need to think beyond that before making sweeping generalisations.
Some of us who were around in 1973, ........ will recall,
... and those who came along later, ............ cannot know,
..... That it was necessary to suspend belief in objective audio engineering science to achieve any sales of the LP12.
This was achieved by misleading sales patter developed by Linn sales agents to entrap the gullible enthusiast customer.
The leading objective reviewers of the day did not accept the LP12 as a credible record player, and some refused to publish a review of it since they considered it to fall short of what was required for Hi-Fidelity reproduction, particularly when it was coupled with Naim amplification.
To say that an LP12 and Kanns will out perform a digital source such as an iPod or a computer source is utter ignorance, and a continuation of the sales patter on which the delusion was based.
For many years neither Gramophone nor hi fi news would review Linn or Naim products and when CD appeared, Gramophone backed it immediately while others shreiked from the rooftops that it wasn't ready yet!
Ash
prisme wrote:I feel like I've stumbled into a meeting of the inquisition and am trying to explain that the Earth is not the centre of the Universe!
But it is absolutely laughable that there are people here who think that an iPod will outperform a Linn Sondek into a matched system.
It won't.
I'm not saying this out of ignorance; I have an iPod 60gb and Etymotic earplugs. It sounds great but to paraphrase Dirty Harry "an iPod should know its limitations".Ok let's try a different angle. Forget the iPod for a second. Do you accept that the best CD-player or digital music streamer in the world will outperform your Linn turntable? Ok, good. Then back to the iPod. Obviously you already know that you can load it with lossless files (perfect copy of the original in the true sense of the word) and that Wadia and Onkyo (and others?) make docks that output the digital signal directly. Connect to the best DAC in the world. What do we get?
You claim you're not coming to this from ignorance but still seems to me you can't break away from the idea of an iPod loaded with crappy quality MP3s and driving crappy earphones from its built in amp. You need to think beyond that before making sweeping generalisations.
As far as I know, my "crappy little earphones" are about as good as you can get.
And they sound great.
And beware of saying that a lossless file is a "perfect copy", as it is a slightly ignorant thing to say.
It is a perfect copy of what?
Sure it is an exact replica of the digital file, but it is certainly not a perfect copy of the original performance.
Now there are many discussions about how the recording is converted into digital, what bitrate conversions are done on the data in the digital domain, what signal processing is done in the digital domain, how to get the datastream to the DAC, TOSlink versus S/PDIF, the quality of the transducers, clocking and jitter, and how good the DAC itself performs.
Earlier on it was said that the line-out of the iPod was better than a Linn Sondek, so it's refreshing to see that people are now having to think about it a little bit more and come up with the (£400) Wadia dock!
That iPod source is starting to get expensive.
The iPod with good headphones will be much better sounding than most hi fi, especially including old turntables that are well and truly obsolete for most now. True it won't image as speakers do but it will be more clear and smoother.
Although iPod docks are popular, they aren't really a very good solution because they are difficult to see and control from a distance, so people use AEX, Apple TV, Mac Minis and control with a Touch or Windows and Squeezebox, but most stream and use some sort of remote control.
As I've said before, you'd do better to read around this forum than to restart discussions that have already taken place on here, in particular DACs, Jitter and SP/DIF, all of which are largely irrelevant. The digital process is better than the rest of a replay system and sound quality of recordings is down to how well they were made.
In a hi fi system, the source is the least important part, DACs don't vary much, Amps vary a lot more and Speakers are all over the place, and you know what we think of yours.
Ash
Back to the Naims ... that balanced mode radiator thingie has some exciting looking measurements
www.audiostereo.pl/forum_wpisy.html?temat=58262&moveto=2
Was it modelled on the Alps?
The iPod with good headphones will be much better sounding than most hi fi, especially including old turntables that are well and truly obsolete for most now. True it won't image as speakers do but it will be more clear and smoother.
Although iPod docks are popular, they aren't really a very good solution because they are difficult to see and control from a distance, so people use AEX, Apple TV, Mac Minis and control with a Touch or Windows and Squeezebox, but most stream and use some sort of remote control.
As I've said before, you'd do better to read around this forum than to restart discussions that have already taken place on here, in particular DACs, Jitter and SP/DIF, all of which are largely irrelevant. The digital process is better than the rest of a replay system and sound quality of recordings is down to how well they were made.
In a hi fi system, the source is the least important part, DACs don't vary much, Amps vary a lot more and Speakers are all over the place, and you know what we think of yours.
Ash
1. No they won't. (Well, obviously talking about a quality hi-fi and not a budget system.)
2. I agree.
3. My posts have been in line with the thread topic, and a discussion has ensued. And it's good to see that you are joining in! I agree that the recording is an overriding feature, and in fact the best digital music files I have have been produced by Linn and Naim.
4. I don't agree that the source is the least important part and it doesn't much matter to me what "we" think of my speakers. There is a small group of people here who zealously dislike them but that's not my problem. My point is that a well matched system sounds great.
Last edited by prisme (2010-02-09 11:52:37)
As horse, a recording professional explained, they use headphones because they are so much more clear and show detail that speakers can't. There is also a great deal more distortion, especially in passive speakers, so an iPod with good headphones is better and that's probably why hi fi is in terminal decline and Apple have sold 250,000, 000 ipods.
There are thousands of recordings out there that are stunningly good and also of a far greater variety of music if you broaden your horizons beyond Linn and Naim's offerings.
The thread topic was about aspiration speakers that people would like to hear and you hijacked it.
The problem with subjective arguments is that the are irreconcilable, people just disagree, but as I explained previously speakers are the weakest link and DACs the strongest and both measurement and subjective assessment shows that. Therefore it is ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Ash
Well, feel free to disagree.
The original post was:
There are far too many loudspeaker designs in the world but there are a few which look like they would stand out from the crowd.
I've ticked off ADM9.1s and the EJ Jordan linear array. Below are a couple on my to-hear list, both of which have been based on scientific principles to come up with something unusual:
and
www.gedlee.com - a DIY incarnation of www.ai-audio.com/products_esp15.html
Which ones have you come across that you'd like to hear?
I'm not sure where a discussion about headphones fits in with that topic, but you know better.
I think that what you are saying is that headphones in the recording studio are a bit like a microscope, in that they give you some detail but you lose the overall picture.
But anyway, back on topic, I say that the Linn Kan stands out from the crowd as a must-hear speaker, the design was based on scientific principles (ie. a source-first system design philosophy) and it is certainly unusual.
Whether or not it is what you personally would like that's your choice, but it is certainly on-topic and by no means any form of hijack.
I didn't say that I only have Linn and Naim recordings, I said that they are the best ones I have.
You certainly seem to be very outspoken and want to tell me what I should and shouldn't do, but who are you anyway?
Last edited by prisme (2010-02-09 12:40:10)
What I am saying is that you'll hear more of a recording by listening to it with an iPod and good headphones that you will with most hi fi system because they have less distortion.
I'm not being outspoken nor telling you what to do, I'm merely providing you with some facts, as have several others on here, so that you understand why some of your perceptions are incorrect.
Ash
Last edited by Ashley James (2010-02-09 12:49:06)
Hm. Must be school lunch break. I began the thread to look at unusual, aspirational or original thinking. The Kans don't fall into any of those categories. I'm not even sure their design was very scientific ('source first' and 'garbage in, garbage out' were marketing slogans and filched from the computer industry so even that wasn't original).
A few design aspects of Linn Kans:
The first 100 cabinets were a BBC design scavenged from Chartwell when they went bust.
They use Kef drivers and the B110 was renowned for varying in quality (which is why the LS5/3a cost so much - the BBC spec B110 came from a small proportion of the production run and crossovers were individually adjusted to account for variations).
A dome tweeter / 4" bass-mid two way is hardly state of the art, having been pioneered by (among others) Laurie Fincham when he was at Goodmans in the 1950s.
Given the design, if the rest of the system is in scale and musical taste matches the Kans idiosyncratic presentation and you happen to have a matched pair, they probably sound quite jolly. Nothing very original though and I wouldn't venture far to listen to another pair. The enclosures come up on eBay occasionally though and if built to the original BBC spec (birch ply, damped, beech battens, screwed front baffle) are worth getting to put something decent in them.
Headphones probably deserve a separate thread (in fact, there's been at least one) but good ones have the virtue of acting as a reference for certain aspects of reproduced sound. That's why sound engineers use them. They might use Linn Kans but only if the mixing desk had a wonky leg.
Last edited by shenzi (2010-02-09 12:55:20)
I should add that the Geddes speakers referenced in the OP don't look particularly original (PA speaker and horn treble) but the designer is a respected engineer in the field and has written several papers on aspects of their design. He appears to be going against the accepted route to arrive at a design he considers state of the art but has the research and credentials to argue the case for doing so.
That's what makes me want to hear a pair of loudspeakers, not 1980s marketing guff.
Ash.
From where I stand I have come into a little pool where there are about half a dozen like-minded people telling me that my perceptions are incorrect.
But I could walk into a Scientology meeting and find everyone there telling me my perceptions were incorrect.
Neither convinces me that that is the case.
Shenzi.
I am sorry that you don't consider the Kan as a stand-out speaker; I suppose that you never quite get what you expected when you start a discussion on the Internet.
But they are certainly idiosyncratic, as you put it, and still perfectly viable and cracking little speakers.
It is interesting that you talk about customizing them, as I have sometimes considered converting them to active, in which case I would need to buy another power amp to drive them too.
My idea of customising the Kans was to throw away the innards and put in something worth listening to. If going active, you might want to consider one of the custom LS3/5a external crossovers though I doubt you'll be too happy with the sound balance (the BBC speaker was designed to be accurate and consistent, being used in live studio monitoring environments).
I'm happy to start a discussion and get surprises. It's time-consuming when someone misses the point and uses it to promote their own narrow viewpoint.
What I am saying is that you'll hear more of a recording by listening to it with an iPod and good headphones that you will with most hi fi system because they have less distortion.
Yes, iPods are great and headphones are often amazing, but have a listen to the files I linked to at the top of the page.
Joe
What's a Linn Sondek?
Tim
P.S. Post 103
Joe
My idea of customising the Kans was to throw away the innards and put in something worth listening to. If going active, you might want to consider one of the custom LS3/5a external crossovers though I doubt you'll be too happy with the sound balance (the BBC speaker was designed to be accurate and consistent, being used in live studio monitoring environments).
I'm happy to start a discussion and get surprises. It's time-consuming when someone misses the point and uses it to promote their own narrow viewpoint.
Well, it's a matter of perspective, isn't it?
I perceive the viewpoint of some of the other posters here as narrow, and it is interesting that there is more discussion about the Kans than any other speaker put forward.
Anyway, you started a thread about innovative aspirational speakers and I responded.
Obviously my response didn't meet your approval and you are having to waste valuable time telling me that.
If only you had said that Linn Kans were not allowed when you started the thread I would have known not to contribute.
The Kans are more unoriginal than I thought. After using the original BBC spec birch ply cabinets, Linn threw away their benefits and produced the enclosures in chipboard. The original BBC research indicated that chipboard was one of the worst materials for producing a neutral-sounding cabinet.
Incidentally, regarding banning the Kans from discussion, I think you'd get the same reaction if you went on a car site and dropped the Trabant into a discussion of F1 technology.
The Kans are more unoriginal than I thought. After using the original BBC spec birch ply cabinets, Linn threw away their benefits and produced the enclosures in chipboard. The original BBC research indicated that chipboard was one of the worst materials for producing a neutral-sounding cabinet.
Incidentally, regarding banning the Kans from discussion, I think you'd get the same reaction if you went on a car site and dropped the Trabant into a discussion of F1 technology.
More like a Caterham (based on the Lotus 7).
You may be uncomfortable and get wet if it rains, but you'll have a hell of a lot of fun!
Last edited by prisme (2010-02-09 13:43:49)
Oh my....the Sondek is a turntable? In that case, Mr. prisme, while this is a tread about speakers you'd like to hear, and you're certainly welcome to put the Linn's on your list, this may be an issue...
But it is absolutely laughable that there are people here who think that an iPod will outperform a Linn Sondek into a matched system.
It won't.
If you can somehow believe that a turntable is superior to any digital source, even an iPod, you're simply in the wrong forum. There are folks here who have and thoroughly enjoy their turntables, but all of us seem to understand that even the best decks produce higher noise and distortion, and lower extension, separation and dynamic range than even the humblest contemporary digital sources. Coming here and introducing speakers you've clearly heard into a thread about "speakers to hear," probably for the sake of stirring the shit, won't serve you well. Using that thread to argue the superiority of a turntable -- any turntable -- just won't work out well. Perhaps there is a nice site out there for antique audio?
Tim
Posts [ 101 to 125 of 349 ]
[ Generated in 0.229 seconds, 8 queries executed ]