Zu

[barredowl]

The accurate speaker is the one with as as flat frequency response as possible, as low a distortion as possible, with good dynamics. Such speakers are available from vendors such Genelac, Yamaha (pro), JBL (pro), Mackie, Paradigm, B & W, etc. Then once you have an accurate speaker driven by an amp with sufficient current and headroom, it must be EQed to the room to deal with room anomalies. Despite audio press hype trying to get you to buy more to reach a mythical perfect tone control free system, there is no such thing, rather there are any number of dynamic monitors that are good enough that can be EQ to sound surprisingly good in just about any space. That and WAF are what's left after all the hype and sales jobs are stripped away.

Really that will be my last post on this subject as those people who want to *believe* vodoo presented with snobbery are not going to be convinced by reason and empiricism anyway, shrug.

And p.s. Bryston is actual good quality studio equipment backed by a lifetime warranty. If you must buy something stamped with the stereopile seal of approval it's a good choice in amps as it actually based on sound engineering and good build quality.

 

[Tube Radio]

While there may be speakers that are the best at reproducing music no speaker can ever actually faithfully reproduce the music like it was heard live, besides every person has their own tastes so what may sound great to one person may sound like absolute junk to someone else. Then again the room, system and music you play will influence how a speaker sounds.

 

[Tube Radio]

I've heaard that a speaker should be able to reproduce a perfect square wave and you must EQ it until there is as good of a square wave as you can get. I have tyet to do so cause I don't have an EQ.

 

[JohnVF]

Really that will be my last post on this subject as those people who want to *believe* vodoo presented with snobbery are not going to be convinced by reason and empiricism anyway, shrug.

But I'm still waiting for the explanation of how to do this all cheaply since audiophile-land is such a rip off. I need to tell my friend Jim who owns a studio running monitors that cost more than my speakers, with amps in the same price range, and a mixing board that probably cost a years worth of my rent and room treatments that would likely shame the cost of my whole system. What is the secret? An EQ. Sweet I have a Pioneer SG-9500 I'll send it right over to him. Gladly. I think it raised my noise floor 20db.

The best sound I ever heard was in a studio. Cost of the gear was probably more than 99.9% of us here run. Speakers were definitely over 10k, though I honestly forget the name. Large in-wall monitors with 15" woofers. Ever seen the big Neve mixing boards? I'll just hide that behind the couch.

 

[dnewma04]

I've heaard that a speaker should be able to reproduce a perfect square wave and you must EQ it until there is as good of a square wave as you can get. I have tyet to do so cause I don't have an EQ.

You can't EQ a speaker to being closer to producing a square wave. A square wave requires extremely high frequency extension. I'm not sure I'd rank that very high on my list of goals.

 

[barredowl]

If you really want to know and aren't just troll baiting John the answer is actually pretty simple, start with some basic pro studio monitor speakers (I listed some brands above), drive them with any number of good quality solid state amps by the likes of Yamaha, Adcom, Crown, QSC, add a basic preamp if you want phono inputs I prefer the old Kenwood and Yamaha units but there are many others available for less than 2 cnotes used, add a good quality used sub, I am partial to the Yamaha servos here but many others available, add a good quality sound card or DAC for your computer and FLAC source files, add a 31 band EQ Behinger makes a good basic one for 129 bucks, finally add a real time analyzer I used a 10.99 download for an iphone but you can get dedicated units with a mic as well for a couple hundred. Finally tune the system as I show how in this posting:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=323439

Total cost for ALL of the above less than half what the superflies cost if bought used and still less than the superflies for the entire system even if it bought new. I would put such a system db matched ABXed against ANY audiophile system at listening levels up to 100 dbs from a listening distance of 10 feet.

 

[barredowl]

I wasn't even gonna take that bait Dnewman.

 

[dnewma04]

Top end studios use equipment that would make most audiophiles blush with their costs. Fill up a studio full of some Klark Teknik gear and prepare for your eyes to bleed and your cash flow to disappear.

 

[JohnVF]

The accurate speaker is the one with as as flat frequency response as possible, as low a distortion as possible, with good dynamics. Such speakers are available from vendors such Genelac, Yamaha (pro), JBL (pro), Mackie, Paradigm, B & W, etc. Then once you have an accurate speaker driven by an amp with sufficient current and headroom, it must be EQed to the room to deal with room anomalies. Despite audio press hype trying to get you to buy more to reach a mythical perfect tone control free system, there is no such thing, rather there are any number of dynamic monitors that are good enough that can be EQ to sound surprisingly good in just about any space. That and WAF are what's left after all the hype and sales jobs are stripped away.

Really that will be my last post on this subject as those people who want to *believe* vodoo presented with snobbery are not going to be convinced by reason and empiricism anyway, shrug.

And p.s. Bryston is actual good quality studio equipment backed by a lifetime warranty. If you must buy something stamped with the stereopile seal of approval it's a good choice in amps as it actually based on sound engineering and good build quality.

Alright, I know I should let this go. But what really gets me with your posts is that you act like none of us have ever been exposed to any of this stuff. You just assume that some great secret has been unlocked. I'm in studios all the time. I've heard every speaker you've mentioned and thanks but no thanks on living with Genelac monitors in my livings. Mackie? I'd love a pair in my bedroom setup but my used Kef 103.2 are cheaper. JBL Pro? No thanks. They would overload my room so fast that no EQ would ever matter. Plus I just don't think they image for anything. That's not the point of them, so I wouldn't expect them to. B&W? Certainly. Actually, Harbeth Monitor 40.1 while we're choosing pro speakers for home. Except that they cost $12,000 in a home-friendly finish.

Also, thank you for assuming I buy things based on a Stereophile seal of approval. I bought a 400wpc Levinson amp for $3000. Try to find it's equivalent in new pro gear. Look around...what? Oh, it would cost at least that, probably more because you'd be looking at Bryston and Chord. Or, hell...maybe even Levinson. Maybe Harman had a package deal with those Pro-JBL speakers that are so cheap.

You are making a lot of assumptions about how many of us have come to our conclusions. A lot more than you assume has been hands on (rather than through assumption).

 

[dnewma04]

I tend to fall into the "objective" camp, but I'd have a difficult time trying to make the argument that is being made from that side in this thread.

 

[barredowl]

Dnewman I am not claiming to get studio quality sound, what I am claiming is so called "audiophiles" are on the wrong track entirely with SET, esoteric speakers that are more WAF than sound engineering (Zu being a prime example) and a bunch of bs subjective pseudo wine tasting terms vocabulary. I am also claiming that a system such as I described above will ABX as good and likely better than most "audiophile" systems with no tone controls that cost 5 times as much.

 

[Jon_Logan]

I do use an eq, but only on low frequencies. Trying to eq mids and highs to solve room interactions doesn't capture the whole picture. The direct and reflected waves are milliseconds off. I think it would better to eq in the extreme near field, but make adjustments to the room in the mid and far field.

 

[JohnVF]

If you really want to know and aren't just troll baiting John the answer is actually pretty simple, start with some basic pro studio monitor speakers (I listed some brands above), drive them with any number of good quality solid state amps by the likes of Yamaha, Adcom, Crown, QSC, add a basic preamp if you want phono inputs I prefer the old Kenwood and Yamaha units but there are many others available for less than 2 cnotes used, add a good quality used sub, I am partial to the Yamaha servos here but many others available, add a good quality sound card or DAC for your computer and FLAC source files, add a 31 band EQ Behinger makes a good basic one for 129 bucks, finally add a real time analyzer I used a 10.99 download for an iphone but you can get dedicated units with a mic as well for a couple hundred. Finally tune the system as I show how in this posting:

I have tried that path. I've experience with QSC and Yamaha, though I haven't owned them (friends stereos and heard many in studios)...but I did own a few pro amps in my music rig. I used a neat little 100wpc Alesis for a bit in my stereo. Pro speakers? Again, I've heard more than you've listed and prefer the ones I have, which were actually much cheaper. Phono preamps? Don't think for a minute what you listed stands up to first hand comparisons with higher end units. It simply isn't so. A $189 DB systems DB-8 will embarrass a Kenwood or Yamaha preamp. But it only gets MUCH better from there (honestly, it does...). I'm not interested in computer based audio but yes a FLAC system with decent DAC will net good sound. My SACD player is more tailored to the sound I'm looking for. I've eq-ed by gear choice, so to speak. Not going after a flat sound so much as a sound that I have in my head, that I chase. I'm very happy with it.

That system you have listed above will sound good, dependent on the monitors used and amps/preamps they're paired with. Old Crown into Genelac is not a combination I'd relish listening to at home. But if you think for a moment that a well thought out high end system couldn't walk all over it, you really should get out and listen to more of this gear. Pro and Consumer can compete with each other, but in my experience the costs are not that far apart for equal performance. You just end up spending money in different places. And you also end up with different sounds. Like it or not, most audiophile speakers have more than a flat response as their goal. Image presentation is a huge consideration as audiophiles dig that stuff. A modern monitor with waveguides, etc, will image but it just isn't the same.

 

[dnewma04]

I do use an eq, but only on low frequencies. Trying to eq mids and highs to solve room interactions doesn't capture the whole picture. The direct and reflected waves are milliseconds off. I think it would better to eq in the extreme near field, but make adjustments to the room in the mid and far field.

And in bass frequencies, traditional EQ doesn't do much to fix the problems there, either.

 

[JohnVF]

and a bunch of bs wine subjective pseudo wine tasting terms vocabulary.

That vocabulary, once you get over how douchey it sounds, is actually very good at accurately describing sound from one person to another. I have bought gear based on a friends subjective description of it based on those terms, and without audition. When I got my hands on it, it sounded exactly as he described. Some of it is meaningless, but 'black background" "liquid midrange" "lack of grain" blah blah..these terms and others actually do mean things to people who are trying to grasp differences that they wouldn't recognize in a plot of a speaker's response curve, though the words and graphs are often saying the same things.

 

[barredowl]

Add a couple subs if you like to make the bass less lumpy Dnewman, point is that we lose when audiophile snobbery trumps trying to understand the physics of sound in a room. To try to get back on track, the way the Zus are marketed and reviewed seems like an egregious example of being on the wrong track. IMO the high end manufactures want to keep their customers in the dark about science because it's easier and more profitable that way. Why pay for sophisticated measurements in an anechoic chamber to derive frequency response and distortion numbers when you can just *say* the speaker has a smooth and liquity high end? Who will even know the difference if the idea of objective standards to judge by has been destroyed beforehand?

 

[JohnVF]

Dnewman I am not claiming to get studio quality sound, what I am claiming is so called "audiophiles" are on the wrong track entirely with SET, esoteric speakers that are more WAF than sound engineering (Zu being a prime example) and a bunch of bs wine subjective pseudo wine tasting terms vocabulary. I am also claiming that a system such as I described above will ABX as good and likely better than most "audiophile" systems with no tone controls that cost 5 times as much.

A SET amp driving a very efficient speaker is a sound subjectively preferred by a lot of people, to that of a high powered amp driving an inefficient speaker. Most of those who I know have drifted over to that side via one or two listening experiences. And no matter how many words you write on the subject, when somebody completely changes course mid-stream, sometimes dumping years worth of gear purchased on a previous assumption of how to do things, there must be something there for them. Much of music happens in the first few watts. If you get those right,...well.

I'm not in that camp but I certainly don't disparage those who are. And as far as I know, the last thing on Stereophile's mind is SET or WAF. Try bringing home a pair of most speakers reviewed in there. They are HUGE and often ugly as sin. How about some lime green Wilson Sophias?

 

[JohnVF]

Add a couple subs if you like to make the bass less lumpy Dnewman, point is that we lose when audiophile snobbery trumps trying to understand the physics of sound in a room. To try to get back on track, the way the Zus are marketed and reviewed seems like an egregious example of being on the wrong track. IMO the high end manufactures want to keep their customers in the dark about science because it's easier and more profitable that way. Why pay for sophisticated measurements in an anechoic chamber to derive frequency response and distortion numbers when you can just *say* the speaker has a smooth and liquity high end? Who will even know the difference if the idea of objective standards to judge by has been destroyed beforehand?

You are showing a complete ignorance for much of what happens in the high end. The biggest way most high end companies make it or break it is in reviews. And lately most of those reviews are accompanied by detailed measurements, even in Stereophile. They can market to their heart's content, but it means little. Everybody waits for the review because NOBODY believes the ads. Ok, there's probably one guy, but everybody else wants to hear what somebody else thought of it, or better yet, to hear it in person. Certainly you can doubt the reviewers, but don't think that people don't begin to lose trust in one when they finally hear something and it turns out to be bunk. Speaking of which, who reviewed the Zus?

And it sounds like ZU offers in home trial, so at least you can send 'em back.

 

[barredowl]

Unpack this for me then John:

"After offering up some freshly made pizza and hauling the Druid back into the main system, we spent the next two hours listening, staring at each other in disbelief and generally laughing and scratching about how these little boxes (we're used to much bigger cabinets) could deliver so much presence, punch, stage, tone and pace."

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/zu6/druid.html

From what I can see it's a bunch of b.s. to hype a speaker that measures like:

(Source of graphs: http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/zucable_druid/)

I have seen way too much of that in the "high end" to take it seriously.

 

[barredowl]

Hint even a big box store "mini system" isn't going to have a 15 db dropout at 150 hz right in the heart of the range of bass and drums where the "weight" of the music is.