• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

What weird or dumb beliefs did you have when you were new to Audio?

That seperates were always superior to integrated amps in sound quality because of the separate transformers and fewer compromises related to chassis space.

I've found that I was wrong. Things are never as simplistic as I want them to be in this hobby.
 
I though all woofers were "subs".

I thought all drivers with silver dustcaps had tweeters in them.

I thought I had to have as close to the rated speaker wattage as possible- no 100 watt per channel amps/receivers with speakers only rated at 50 watts.

I liked Sansui kabuki...;)
 
45rpmspinner said:
I thought having a nice stereo would attract girls.
Click to expand...

It does work.
However placement of your nice stereo is critical!!
Next time try placing it in the dashboard of one of these.
Let us know how you do.

index.php
 
A few misnomers that at one time I steadfastly believed:
2-way speakers can't compete with 3-ways
40 watts per channel will sound twice as good as 20 watts
always compare specs: numbers don't lie, but your ears can be fooled
 
Getting seriously interested in audio around 17-ish (well before later going to school for electrical engineering), I read a lot and picked up a lot of BS in the process. I thought any silicon at all in audio equipment was bad, period. I claimed I could tell the difference, even though what I was using and comparing with was not a fair test. I still prefer tubes because I love everything about them - collecting, studying, and using them - because they are tubes, not because "silicon is bad".

I also used to think there was no good music produced after the early '90s or so. Pandora straightened me out on that one :).
 
Harvestor said:
I used to Believe that "Less Efficient" loudspeakers were inferior to one's that are more Efficient like my Cerwin Vega D9's that are rated @ 101 DB @1 meter away with 1 watt....
And whilst I love my Cerwin Vega speakers...
I absolutely Adore and Love my OHM Acoustics More.....yet they are far less Efficient @ around 89 DB rated @ 1 watt ....on
average
Click to expand...

Heh, yea, that was the first "number" I learned - speaker efficiency. Which I guess matters when you're talking low power amps. But everything I've owned puts out 100 watts or above. So the efficiency doesn't matter.
 
quiet said:
My plan was to get on Craigslist and pick out a speaker that does "everything" in the finish of my choice for a few hundred bucks.
Click to expand...

I also believed I would get good stuff cheap. What I found is, in general, you get exactly what you pay for. The best stuff I own is stuff I either paid decent $$ for, or threw decent $$ at. That $500 holy grail speaker just isn't out there (not for me anyway). :)
 
That a 16 cu. ft. enclosure would surely improve the bass mightily from the 2 cu. ft. existing one.

:no: Huge, ugly, and altogether dumb.
 
When I was a teenager first getting into this hobby I used to think that speakers with 24 dB per octave crossover slopes were better than speakers with 6, 12 or 18 dB per octave slopes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom