johann;613762 Wrote:
I think the same can be said about Linn, at least to some extent.
Yes, I suppose so. But Naim (as a company, not their equipment) always
struck me as being more suspect in this sense.
Remember how when Linn started making amplifiers, Naim absolutely
chucked their toys out
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
A lot of audiophiles seem to be willing to expend a lot of effort in
fighting this awful digital glare at the wrong end -- by playing with
the EQ, by placing speakers in different formations, and by treating
the listening room for minimizing various artifacts.
Naim made speakers from the very earliest days though - years before
Linn made amps. IIRC they were a Spendor sized ported box using
modified Goodmans drive units.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile:
What is most supicius with naim in my opinion.
Whe know the box and powersypply is the most expensive things in any
product costing more than the circiut boards, in hi end hifi it would
be the box for line level products.
Yet naim seems to perversly by design maximise the box count ? It comes
michael123;613880 Wrote:
Speakers, amplification and the room - are working together. Standing
waves, comb filtering, reflections, excessive reverberation and echo,
bass boosts as big as 10db - all this is quite common in typical setup.
And it is noise..
Good source is important, but
JezA;613882 Wrote:
Naim made speakers from the very earliest days though - years before
Linn made amps. IIRC they were a Spendor sized ported box using
modified Goodmans drive units.
The first proper Naim speaker was the SBL in 1986. There was a much
earlier one that was actually made by
Phil Leigh;613764 Wrote:
As a long-term Linn user (since early 80's) I can agree with that... to
some extent. They have now moved on. Actually to be fair. it is no
longer Linn that have this attitude, but some of their customers!
You can imagine the fun I have with my mongrel system and a
Mnyb;613884 Wrote:
Hifi has become so niche that no real engineers are involved, and the
client side have people buing cable supports ? And powercords instead
of well enginered products ?
To be fair there are quite a few resonably engineered prodcuts out
there.
But with clients that
Phil Leigh;613886 Wrote:
The first proper Naim speaker was the SBL in 1986. There was a much
earlier one that was actually made by Mordaunt-Short which must have
sold all of 10 pairs...
Naim's behvaiour when Linn brought out the LK-270 was laughable - very
childish.
The Mordaunt Short
JezA;613895 Wrote:
The Mordaunt Short one - iirc the NA 602 - was in the same cabinet to
the earlier one I mentioned with modified Goodmans drive units. These
failed regularly, hence the move to MS. Many more than 10 pairs were
sold. It was certainly a proper speaker.
IIRC the model before
johann;613894 Wrote:
To be fair there are quite a few resonably engineered prodcuts out
there.
But with clients that believe in and willing to buy expensive cable
supporters, exotic power cables that does not even have any filters,
expensive USB and TP cables, mouse shaped sand bags to
Phil Leigh;613900 Wrote:
IIRC the model before the NA 602 (the MS one) was never retailed - it
was primarily for studio use. The NA 602 itself is rare as hens teeth -
they were only made for about 12 months.
I personally sold several pairs of the ones with Goodmans drive units,
including a
Everything has its place. You can't fix electronic distortion with
acoustics. You can't fix room flutter with a better DAC. You can't fix
group delay or lack of dynamic range with speaker positioning. You
can't fix boomy bass by reducing jitter.
Your ears don't like distortion and they don't
darrenyeats;613903 Wrote:
Everything has its place. You can't fix electronic distortion with
acoustics. You can't fix room flutter with a better DAC. You can't fix
group delay or lack of dynamic range with speaker positioning. You
can't fix boomy bass by reducing jitter.
Your ears don't
JezA;613902 Wrote:
I personally sold several pairs of the ones with Goodmans drive units,
including a pair to my best pal. Definitely retail. None of them to
studios. Julian told me he had met a speaker designer who had worked
for Goodmans, (can you guess who?) who told him of a drive unit
Mnyb;613889 Wrote:
Also the brain is very adaptive, you get used to your listening
environment even the most cross errors.
I bet that even the most seasoned sound engineer can loose his edge in
unfamiliar acoustics.Those adaptive mechanisms apply to all listening and
that certainly
Mnyb;613906 Wrote:
I just wanted to sharpen my reasoning against the audiphile obsession
with the little things and just ignore the big picture.I think we can agree
on that.
--
Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's Profile:
Mnyb;613889 Wrote:
Also the brain is very adaptive, you get used to your listening
environment even the most cross errors.
I bet that even the most seasoned sound engineer can loose his edge in
unfamiliar acoustics.
Why is it that you can play a real instrument in your living room or
your
duke43j;613974 Wrote:
Why is it that you can play a real instrument in your living room or
your kitchen and it still sounds like a real instrument?
Maybe because it IS a real instrument? ;)
Try playing in your loo, I bet it sounds different to your living room.
--
johann
I can't remember Woodman's name being mentioned, but I doubt it was
anyone else, given that Naim went on to use ATC drive units and make
active crossovers for Linn.
--
JezA
JezA's Profile:
duke43j;613974 Wrote:
Why is it that you can play a real instrument in your living room or
your kitchen and it still sounds like a real instrument?
By adding acoustic treatment to our listening room are we trying to
recreate the dead sound of the recording studio? In the case of a
Kal Rubinson;613968 Wrote:
Those adaptive mechanisms apply to all listening and that certainly
includes the more subtle colorations and distortions of electronics.
In other words, it does not apply any more to the listening environment
than it does to anything in the audio chain.
Yes
It's important to attack the issue at both ends. Quality at the front
end, and quality at the end.
Take ANY system of carefully selected components, and put them in a bad
acoustic environment.See what happens.
Room acoustics will make or break ANY system in my experience, and
you've all
And yes phil is rigth the recording overlays it's acoustic over your own
or vice versa , I use Meridian DRC in the bass 300 hz M does not
believe that it works any good in higher freq.. pre echo and stuff and
in higher frequencies you can mentally separate direct and reflected
sound and
I finally had time to implement and listen to Toolbox 2. First I like to
thank soundcheck for making it so easy for us to test this for us self.
Before I post my impression I should point out that I'm member of the
camp that do believe buffer size is something that are dimensioned to
aether work
Hello again chaps - interesting read between all of you about Linn, Naim
etc. I've never owned any of these brands yet, anyway moving on...
Perhaps again somewhat relevant to the title of my thread - I've been
prancing around the Internet reading things with interest. One
particular article I
stop-spinning;614014 Wrote:
So chaps, according to hi-endaudio.com - watch out for the Transport -
and our transport in this case is our SB. The DAC is far less
significant.
Which is already bit perfect
--
johann
Yes the dac produce the actual audio
Take advice from the internet with cation even more soo if it's a
typical audio cultist forum..
They are on thier usual graal quest never quite finding the end off the
rainbow..
--
Mnyb
magiccarpetride;613824 Wrote:
A lot of audiophiles seem to be willing to expend a lot of effort in
fighting this awful digital glare at the wrong end -- by playing with
the EQ, by placing speakers in different formations, and by treating
the listening room for minimizing various artifacts.
Mnyb;613990 Wrote:
Yes ofcourse, I was just thinking that the shear size of an acoustical
change was more disorientating...Yes, that is so. OTOH, our auditory system
has evolved for the signal
detection skills needed for survival. These include distinguishing a
significant signal from the
I think people don't realize just how difficult it would be to have a
perfect replication of live music through any practical home audio
system.
Consider playing a violin in someone's living room. The strings and
f-holes point forward and up and slightly to one direction. However,
the violin
On 02/26/2011 05:49 PM, Kal Rubinson wrote:
OTOH, our auditory system has evolved for the signal
detection skills needed for survival. These include distinguishing a
significant signal from the background and localizing it. Notice how
you can recognize a familiar voice on the limited
On 27/02/11 00:12, mlsstl wrote:
Any recording is going to capture sound from only one perspective. And,
any speaker you have in your room, is going to radiate only in one
fashion. It has no ability to change its radiation pattern to vary with
each instrument.
Similarly, arbitrary
On 27/02/11 00:51, Pat Farrell wrote:
On 02/26/2011 05:49 PM, Kal Rubinson wrote:
OTOH, our auditory system has evolved for the signal
detection skills needed for survival. These include distinguishing a
significant signal from the background and localizing it. Notice how
you can recognize
zzzap;613998 Wrote:
After 'ttinit' and reboot sound is now more laybacked and relaxed. Not
so edgy as it was stock. I did't listen very long but *'is it dull?'*
This initial observation of yours was interesting.
It somewhat coincides with my some of my impressions.
I installed (almost)
Robin Bowes;614069 Wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with your general outlook here, but...
The stereo recording process captures the nuances of the environment
in
which it was recorded. A good stereo recording through a reasonable
quality reproduction system sounds awesome. I have a recorded
On 02/26/2011 07:12 PM, mlsstl wrote:
However, a trumpet played in the same room sends most of its sound
directly forward.
This opinion is not backed by facts. The whole trumpet vibrates. Sound
is not a point source from some mythical point in the bell. Rather the
bell and tubing resonate with
Yes I agree with your conclusion. I also learned to stop flaming people
that say there is a big difference in SQ when tuning buffer size. But I
can still flame them if they say it is better ;)
But seriously, the brighter sound signature I hear from lower buffer
size can still theoretically come
pfarrell;614074 Wrote:
This opinion is not backed by facts. The whole trumpet vibrates. Sound
is not a point source from some mythical point in the bell. Rather the
bell and tubing resonate with the notes. Its not the breath of the
player that comes rushing out of the bell. The breath
On 27/02/11 02:43, mlsstl wrote:
pfarrell;614074 Wrote:
This opinion is not backed by facts. The whole trumpet vibrates. Sound
is not a point source from some mythical point in the bell. Rather the
bell and tubing resonate with the notes. Its not the breath of the
player that comes rushing
40 matches
Mail list logo
