Archive through October 12, 2004

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 424
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:26 am:

by using the front preouts
of the nad to the mac. any sound that would come out the front speakers
will not come out of the mac.

Ok, not sure if this is fatigure or stupid girl question. What's the purpose of setting this up if sound doesn't come out of Mac? Or, would this only be the case in surround sound and, in stereo, the Mac would be powering the speakers?

Relevant Product Info

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:27 am:

Marc - KEF doesn't make any bad speakers. The 104's were the first speaeker KEF made that wasn't a sealed box. It had more efficiency than previous KEF models and, due to the unique bass loading, could take a substantial amount of power with low distortion in the bass. It sounds more "American" than the models that preceeded it but that shouldn't stop anyone from considering it as a good choice.

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 426
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:27 am:

Make that fatigue not fatigure....man, I should go to bed now.

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 427
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:29 am:

Is fatigue right? It looks weird to me right now...

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:32 am:

Ghia - Yes, I'll be replacing the glass but not right away. I've got to pay for the rest of the room redo and then the house has to be painted. The 6200 will go in the back room, possibly in cabinet where I'll be the only one who sees it. If that happens the glass is not an important item to me until I get the house squared away.

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1614
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:36 am:

anyways ghia the point of all I mentioned about the mac hookup like that
is so you use the mac amp not the nad to power your front speakers.

that should let you know if an amp "mac or other"
will give you that sound you want for 2 channel
and also work within your surround setup.

this is what i've been trying to get accross as what i've done.

I'm running my h/k reciever out to my tube preamp
then from my tube preamp out to whatever amps i'm running
to a pair of speakers.

now just like your mac has different inputs for things so does my
tube preamp. it has 2 inputs. the denon 2200 has the 5.1 analog outs
plus a 2 channel set. so the 5.1 goes to the reciever
then the 2 channel goes to the second set of inputs on the preamp or
in your case another input on the mac.

so now if me or you want to listen to 2 channel
we flip to the input of the denon 2200. "2 channel"
if we want to listen in multi channel we flip to
the input from the reciever.

now when you are listening to 2 channel you can either use the input
on the mac from the 2200 then it controls volume.
or you can use the input from the reciever and set
the volume about half way on the mac
"be careful switching back (very loud) without turning the volume back down"
then the nad will control volume.

I hope that was to confusing sounding.

but it works trust me! and for me works really well!

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1615
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:39 am:

ghia that was a typo!

it should have said!

"by using the front preouts
of the nad to the mac. any sound that would come out the front speakers
will "NOW" come out of the mac."

SORRY IT SHOULD OF SAID NOW INSTEAD OF NOT!

my bad typing again!

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1616
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:43 am:

woops another typo!

"I hope that was to confusing sounding."

should have been

"I hope that WASN'T to confusing sounding."

Gold Member

Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 1617
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:48 am:

anyways it may be to complicated when tired.

get some sleep then if you look at it in the morning
you'll probably see what i'm doing.

using the nad as a preamp to your mac is the basic idea.

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:14 am:

"be careful switching back (very loud) without turning the volume back down"

Yes, it could be quite loud. This is why they have those warnings on liquor bottles and antihistamines about not operating high powered machinery while under the influence. Maybe those warnings should be amended to cover high powered amplifiers.

John A.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2237
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 02:40 am:

Marc,

I thought you had settled on the KEF 104/2 many moons ago, and was wondering how it worked out. Were they not for a girlfriend?

My Rantz and Ghia,

In my view, trying to catch up with the thread, there was nothing intended to be personal in MR's post, but it could, just, be taken that way. Classic misunderstanding. Ghia, your experiments with different combinations of gear are the thing most consumers cannot do, or are unwilling to spend the time at. It is great to read what you find.

Jan,

By the time my ISP returned my notification, I had missed most of the thread you linked. I went there, read through it, composed several terse remarks about oscillosopes' deplorable taste in music, but saw the heat had died down, and thought "why fan the flames?". There is a real question behind all that, I think, which is why people think there is some conflict between what you can measure and what you can experience more directly, with your senses. We have seen this debate before; I had it one with Gregory. If understood it right, the Fry man was saying what you can measure takes precedence over what you experience, or think you do, while you are saying the opposite. That is leaving aside the guy's condescension and breathtaking arrogance, of course. I see you react in the same way that I do to being patronised!

All,

Having come down on the side of honest reports of first-hand experience, I have to say I remain sceptical about spraying/wiping stuff on CDs making any difference at all, Classical 1. Yes, "how does it work?". We can all persuade ourselves we hear differences that aren't there; it is not dishonesty, it is how our brains work. The way to do that test properly is have two copies of a number discs, play them to people who do not know which is which, with the person loading the disc not knowing, either, then see, afterwards, if there is any statistical difference between what people report for treated and untreated discs. I.e. the dreaded double-blind trial. Unless the difference really hits you in the face, every time. C 1 you must forgive people like me who find that very hard to believe. Discs are optical devices, with little mirrors. They just need to be clean. No disrespect. You do go a little into hard-sell mode, though, if I may say so. The fluid has some chemical composition - does it have to be that particular brand.....?

Finally got the A family Saturday night casting vote; a DVD-V I brought back from UK. 1993 production of "Porgy and Bess". Wonderful; moving; stunning cast; fantastic performance. In stereo. No center; no sub. The hurricane storm on Catfish Row was scarier than anything from any number of subs. "Bess you is my woman now/Porgy you is my man" has you choking, and needs no center channel. What an extraordinary and beautiful musical, or opera, or whatever it is called. EMI7243 4 92496 9 1. I will not copy it for anyone; �10 for that is money well spent, I assure you. A classic.

Discussed the NAD/EMI problem again with family over dinner. We are all softies and get attached to things. NAD made a brilliant DVD-A player, in good faith, up to published spec.; gives great customer service; is caught out by EMI's unannounced lurch into copy protection. EMI has not responded to the same e-mail I sent to NAD, and there is nothing on the box to warn you before you buy.

I think, if it can be updated, we will keep the NAD T533, and maybe I'll get a separate SACD player one day. If we have the option of getting say a Denon 2910 (replacing the 2200, confusingly - I imagine they hope people will think it is a price drop), then I'll audition it, but it's still a whole lot more money than the T533. Instead, I could probably get a respectable, separate CD/SACD player, or begin saving for my McIntosh amp... There is, of course, the question of the HDMI interface for video.

Have Nov. HFN with its AV supplement and reviews of Spendor S6e, PMC DB1+ "LS3/5a wannabe" (what is "tranmission line"?), the "inside story" on the LS3/5a legend from one of the guys involved in its design, and a trip to Audio Classics in NY.

I have no shares in anything, folks. I think I am going to get some new stuff some time next year, though: I am enjoying listening to music more than ever. I think I'll start with an RB300 tonearm, the Planar 3 motor upgrade, and look into an affordable valve amp.

I love you guys' descriptions of the Mac sound. Wish I could try it. I'll look for Mac dealers; another New Year's Resolution. But I can only stand so many reminders of my place in the economic hierarchy.

John A.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2239
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 04:04 am:

Classical 1,

In my opinion you are recommending snake-oil. Or more likely, Turtle Wax (TM) with about a 10,000 % mark-up. No I have not tried it. But consider:

We've developed a new product that improves the sound of CDs�and the sound and picture quality of DVDs by as much as 30%.

Ah, the oscilloscope again, probably.... I love "as much as". 0% is "as much as" 30% and well the writer knows it. He is covering his options because he knows full well that there is no linear scale of sound and picture quality. That is, actually, what the word "quality" means. You might as well say Picasso was up to 30% better than Salvador Dali. For Pete's sake....

First, we mix Vivid ourselves, very precisely, using ingredients that clean, destatic and optically enhance the disk.�Some of the� ingredients are also used in car wax which accounts for its smell.

Does it work? It could fill in any scratches with wax of about the same refractive index as the plastic the disc is made of. But so would Turtle Wax. I can guess the application instructions: apply thin layer gently, covering whole surface. Allow to dry. Buff off with small circular motions of supplied non-abrasive cloth. No?

From the same makers:

SST�Super Silver Treatment��
Ultra-pure, micron-sized silver flake suspended in a carefully- selected organic fluid.�As the SST breaks in, the molecular structure of the silver aligns with the current flow smoothing out the power transfer and enhancing the contact between component connectors.�The results are cleaner,��clearer and better focused�highs.

That makes it clear, doesn't it? If it actually worked, they would not need to write stuff like that.

Don't you think?

By the way is "SST" the stuff, or what you do with it?

Source

There is a comparative, subjective review of three competing brands of snake-oil, one a CD mat, written in the same breathless style, here.

Consider this latest breakthrough; another brand of snake oil, "aptly named 'Digital Juice'" [Kerr-rist...] can affect the music without affecting the sound.

The differences between treated and untreated discs were rather interesting. I say interesting, because at first there seemed to be little change sonically to the disc. What did happen though is that there's a change muscially to the discs! That is, CDs just sounded better than before, but in a way that is more of a musical nature than one of sonics.

Which, roughly translated, means "I imagined it".

Even making the charitable assumption that "muscially" is a typographical error. But who knows?

Happy Sunday, Old Dogs.

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 808
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 04:39 am:

Ghia,

I am through arguing in this copy protect debate, but I must clear up any misconceptions.
My reference to indivudual artists was to Jan's mention of Pavarotti and Gene Kruper. You Old dogs should know me enough by now that if I say somesome like " I sorry, my intention was not to offend etc" then I am to be believed. If my intentions were otherwise I would not hide behind false apologies amd mealy-mouthed words - I'd darn well tell you straight up!

You, John, Jan and the other dogs are just as entitled to your opinions as I am mine. But, you guys are right, I am wrong - it's just much easier that way.

2Y'S UR 2Y'S UB IC UR 2Y'S 4ME!

Classical 1

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 08:52 am:

Well, John A. you dissemble mightily, sir, but all I'll say is that I (and 6 friends) did hear major differences - and see them, too. That's all I'll say, as I have no scientific training, as you appear to have. Well - sorry if I got up on a stump, but I have forever complained about the sound quality of CDs - and anything that (even if it is all in my mind?) helps I tend to embrace.
Is the darned stuff just watered-down car wax? Heck, maybe it is - and maybe I need to go out, get some Turtle Wax, and try it! I have not used the SST, but I know that several of you have used ProGold, which is in the same category, I think. How about it, ProGold users, is it all snake oil, as John A. loves to proclaim?
But I haven't the time, sir, as I'm on my way out the door for a hard-work week or 10 days, then on to Siesta Key (Sarasota) Florida and my beloved Colgate 26 sailboat. Fine racer, that one!
Happy dissembling all, and to all, a good week!
More later. . .

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 428
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 09:20 am:

Thanks Kegger! I believe the "not" instead of the "now" is what threw me off. Thanks for the followup and explanation. Makes sense and will try it. The only logistic now is figuring out how to make room for 2 pairs of front speakers (since I ultimately will use B&W or Spendor on the fronts.)

JohnA

Interesting info on the CD treatments. You do have to wonder at what point the "tweaks" become figments of imagination.

The testing was done only because there was no one around this weekend to tell me this is an an-al retentive exercise. lol. I do wish all the OD's could be here for the comparison. It would be nice to get more experienced ears involved. At the very least, I think I will invite someone over who has not heard either system and who does not know which I prefer and see what they have to say.

You are right, the Mac prices are pretty humbling. As Jan mentioned before, I might be able to afford their current multichannel receiver in 25 years as a used unit....unless I sell NAD and B&W then don't get Spendors, don't go to SF next year,etc.

If the NAD T533 is working for you and your family, I would put the money towards a Mac instead of another source (knowing what I now know). Of course, getting both would be the ultimate. Are you really considering getting a Mac? Would it be for the HT system or the 2ch?

Jan,

What are your thoughts on Mac's MHT 100 and MHT 200 a/v integrated amps? Would anything be lost from a musical perspective?

MR,

Understood. I'm sorry for my early misconception. My first instinct tends to be to try to figure out what someone "really" meant instead of trusting what was actually said. It's a character flaw.

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 429
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:10 am:

In regards to measurement vs experience debate, I came across this article and thought it might be interesting to some:

Deeper Meanings by Robert Harley

Which sparked 8 pages of letters to the editor found at the following link:

Letters to Editor

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 430
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:30 am:

This afternoon, I'm going to test some car wax on a few of my CD's. Instead of Turtle Wax I'll use Zymol which smells great! Hopefully, there will be improved sonic qualities and a fresher smelling house. Will report back later.

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 431
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 10:40 am:

From Newsweek article about Jazz at Lincoln Center:

The acoustic triumph of the whole project is the Allen Room, with that sky-size window. Glass is an acoustician's nightmare, but by angling the window slightly, the designers pushed the sound up, not back at the audience. When it hits the ceiling, it meets a grid of spongelike diffusers that spread the music back over the audience with an almost golden quality. Another big plus is something you'll never see: to keep it free of outside sound or vibration, the Rose Theater floats within the building around it, like a box within a box. It's connected only at the floor, where it rests on neoprene. As a result, the hall is quieter than most recording studios. But the best feature of all was a happy accident: only when the room was finished did its designers discover that, thanks to the box-within-a-box design, cell phones don't work there.

How cool is that? Jan, is it too late to "float" your backroom? lol.

Full article

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 12:57 pm:

I'm afraid my 1920's bungalow wouldn't tolerate floating anything. But it is interesting, I think, to find spaces that are done that way in the original design of the house. Back when the house was built there were four chimneys in the house, one on an exterior wall and three that were on interior walls. The three interior chimneys had to have isolation from the framing of the house so, as I have run wires throughout the house for stereos and new AC outlets I have found many spots where the rooms are not physically connected to one another as they are in modern construction. The use of the chimney space to create closets and a pantry and a large hallway in the center of the house means most rooms only touch one another in infrequent spots, if at all. The walls of the house are lathe boards over the studs which gives a good thick sturdy, wall that is equivalent to the modern idea of double thick wall board. The isolation from room to room, and to external noise, is very good and I don't have a bad sounding room in the house. The ten foot ceilings help there also. The dimensions of the rooms are a natural aid to good sound, no square rooms and no dimensions that are divisible by a common number. This is one more example of "they don't build them like that anymore". I have helped clients create new rooms and the added expense of creating a good sounding room is rather high today when it was common practice when my home was built.

As far as the McIntosh A/V gear is concerned, the first thing to understand about Mac is they do not have different standards for different pieces of equipment. McIntosh has always built their equipment one way. What they consider the right way. That's a pretty loose term as we would hope no one is designing a product the wrong way. Unfortunately, some are; but, that is a story for another time. For now, we'll just pull the blanket up snug and we'll go to sleep to Jan telling us about how McIntosh builds amps.
McIntosh has, for me, been a guide post between what you can measure and what you can hear. From the first McIntosh product there was an idea of what they wanted to achieve and among those many goals (today known as a "mission statement") was the accurate reproduction of a signal, be it music in the home or studio or raw information in a laboratory. (Mac has had a dedicated market in audiology labs and other scientific areas for decades because of their measured accuracy and reliability to maintain those specs.) In the first threee decades of McIntosh's existence they were, along with a few other companies, percieved to be one of the most musically satifsfying products you could own. As the High End market emerged in the 70's and 80's, Mac was often thought to be a lost company because they did not rush to put this type of wire or that sort of capacitor in their products. But as the companies that were "hot" for awhile started to fall by the wayside, McIntosh continued to produce products that satisfied people musically and still worked in the labs.
I would suggest that the pleasure that several of us have found in the McIntosh products we own is evidence that Mac was always doing things right. And there were, and still are, other companies that had a good idea what they wanted to achieve and were very consistent about what they produced. Quite a few of these companies, similarly to Mac, were run and staffed by engineers and "scientists". Most of these companies relied on measured performance to tell them when they had designed a good product. I would, and have, put my Mac tubes up against any audio made today and know they will not be embarassed. As I pointed out, the MC275, the big brother to my amps, designed in the early 60's, is rated a Class A amp by Sterephile in their most recent issue. The sound that the Mac integrateds we own is producing for each of us is a good indication that basic design and construction is the most important part of what will produce good sound. None of our integrateds have fancy caps or resistors, they all have push type connectors for speaker wires (not speaker cables). And yet they are very nice to listen to and would not be out of place in any price range of matching components. In the 80's and 90's McIntosh was considered almost a dead company by the high end police. Mainly because they stuck with what they had and didn't rush to put this or that in their equipment. They were denegrated because they had given up their tube designs and produced nothing but solid state. (I'm here to tell you, as much as I love my Mac tubes, there isn't a whole lot of difference between them and the 6200. It's there but they are obviously cut from the same cloth.) Other high end/high priced companies ran with the new ideas, often recycled old ideas, with new parts and new this or that. Several companies became famous and made their owners lots of money by this method. Mac seemed almost stubborn in their refusal to follow trends. They wouldn't have their gear submitted to the subjective magazines.
But as time went on Mac slowly changed and started using poly caps and metal film resistors; they put heavy binding posts on their amps and gold plated RCA's and XLR's on their gear. (Would they have done this had the ownership not changed in the 90's? No one can tell.) Today they are back in the magazines, they are producing tube designs and they are getting reviews that compare their musicality to the very best on the market. But the thing that hasn't changed in anyway is the idea of how Mac builds their equipment and how it ultimately sounds. Having been indoctrinated (brainwashed) by McIntosh over thirty years ago I would say a large part of what made McIntosh was their devotion to the music. A brand new McIntosh sounds very much like a forty year old McIntosh. And Mac has always been sold on the idea that there was no difference in sound between the least expensive and the most expensive. The client just chose based on the amount of power and the flexiblity they needed/desired. I can name plenty of companies that were hot for a while and are totally out of business and mostly forgotten by the masses of audiophiles out there. I always sold Mac with the concept that the client may find something better or more to their tatse (and I had others to listen to if they wished) but the client could never go wrong with any piece of Mcintosh. I would say I probably lost some sales to people who wanted me to tell them Mac was old school and they should buy this amp or that pre amp. But I thought I was being honest in my assessment. One other company I sold that seemed to parallel Mac was Quad. I would be happy with any product from either company.

Classical 1

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:01 pm:

Thought I'd check in here before I get into the Toyota and drive away. Glad that our CD "wax" is giving you all so much enjoyment. I understand your reticence - as I, too, thought it might be voo-doo. But seven of us heard differences, and that's good enough for me.
John A. - you seem like a person who loves to shoot down what you don't understand. Iconoclast is too mild a term, sir. IF you try something, then label it hocum, fine. But may I suggest that you try a product, then criticize.
No, I'm not trying to "sell" anybody anything. But don't you - all of you - have occurrances where you find a speaker, amplifier, CD or even stylus-cleaner that makes you feel good? Ah, then you want to tell others about it, unless I miss my guess. Such is the "Vivid" for me.
I may or may not access this forum during the next week or so - but I hope that you don't say horrible things about me behind my back. I mean well - I really do.
More much later. . .

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 432
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 01:40 pm:

Classical 1,

Have a safe trip! Do check back in with us.

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:25 pm:

After that last epic I feel I still have something to say (how is that possible you ask)about subjective and objective attitudes. (Well, I'll tell you how. This is helping me avoid working on the back room today, that's how. This is long and rambling and you are probably better to ignore it since it most likely has no real point other than I don't want to smell paint thinner right now.)

It seems John, in his remarks to Classical 1, is dismissive of the results that were observed by a group of listeners, or at least skeptical without further proof. Yet, John seems to back me up on my comments to the "techie" in another thread who seems determined to "bust the myths" of others when they are merely ideas the techie doesn't want to accept. (The techie was/is arrogant about it so there is large difference there.)

It appears to me the world is getting more argumentative and that arguments are becoming a large part of our daily life. That is evident here in the States by our politics. By this time a year ago, the majority of voters knew how they would vote, Republican or Democrat. There is a very small number of undecideds and, I think, as some have suggested, they are not undecided but uninterested. But that division of ideas is creeping into our daily lives. And I don't exclude my self from this mix of attitudes. I work my garden organically and believe in its benefits. I find the claims of the chemical companies to be disingenuous though neighbors claim their successes with those products. I find the word conservative to be a sphinchter tightening sound. Others use the word liberal to explain everything in a Pavlovian fashion. Neither side is willing to give an inch to the other. And amazingly the word I hear the most from all sides in all debates is VooDoo. They want to destroy something that is based in faith, which is the essence of VooDoo I believe. Mr. Harley touches on this in the article Ghia linked to.

I have been involved in HiFi long enough, as have most of you, to have heard innumerable tweaks that were claimed to make my humble system so good it would make Lew Johnson or Frank McIntosh tremble in fear. As a salesperson I had to decide what tweaks I would represent to my clients and how I would go about doing such. I've had people, as I said, that I lost a sale to because I suggested McIntosh was very good when they wanted to hear Mac was old school and this is what I should sell everyone. I've been told I couldn't possibly sell everything as good when there must be one that is best. I've been told everything is the same why bother. I've heard LP vs. CD, tubes vs. transistors, cable vs. just wires and on and on and on.
Probably the best tweak I have heard is opening a select number of strategically placed CD covers would smooth out the sound of your system. OK, I can accept that there can be a difference but I'm not willing to go down that path. There was a small journal a while back called "The Wood Effect" and among its claims was that wood is bad for your system. I could accept that also; but, the author never explained why the wood in the speaker cabinet wasn't bad.
So over the years I have tried to form my ideas about what I will believe and what I won't as have most of us. One thing I have settled on believing is that I believe the other person can do, see, hear, smell, taste and feel things I can't. They can also know things I don't and/or can't. So I never doubt anyone anything they tell me they have experienced. Another thing I believe is it is doing no one a service to ignore or dismiss any ideas. So I have a problem with those who want to tell me something can't happen. I try to understand how or why something happens and then file that into a group that I can pull out and go, "OK, that is related to that." Rather like the idea that when the pasta pot is over the flame for the required nine minutes (2 1/2 for fresh pasta) the pot is going to be pretty darn hot to the touch and a piece of linguine will burn my tongue if I take it from the pot into my mouth. (Just as a word of cautionary fact, the wooly worms are particularly thick and dark this year. That means we're going to have a hard, cold winter.)
I can accept the idea that Clasical 1 believes there is a difference to be had with his fluid. I have to accept that not everyone wants to believe that idea and therefore demands it is impossible. What I can't accept is that I believe both positions to be true. To accept or reject an idea and shut down all thinking is doing neither side a favor. I assume this is where John would agree with me. How we go about prooving the results to ourselves is different I suspect. I have the faith that if I percieve a result that fits into my frame of how and why that is enough for me. Others will demand scientific, repeatable proof. They are more than welcome to measure their little hearts out. If they aren't satisfied they are getting the results I obtained then they should just move on. I don't see the purpose of continuing to argue the point. (This is where you all are remembering how many topics I have beaten into the ground, includung this one, isn't it?) But if I have satisfied myself with the results that is good enough for me. I'll pass on the results and if someone else wants to give it a try that's fine by me.
The question was asked about contact cleaners vs. CD treatments. They fall into a slightly different category with me. When I clean my system with ProGold or Cramolin I can see the residue being removed. When I clean my CD's I usually don't see a difference of the same magnitude. Is the CD surface cleaner or more shiny? I'd say yes. Is that good? I'd say yes. I know there are mold release agents on the CD when it is pressed that probably are not removed completely unless I do the job. Does it make the CD sound better? If I think it does that is all I require. Could I do it less expensively with another material? I don't know but how many am I willing to try before I just buy what is being sold? Or buy nothing at all.
Do I think various tube types make my amplifiers sound better than some others? Yes. Do I think tube amps are better than solid state? Some are and some aren't. I know I can be happy with the sound of a Dynaco ST70 and with the sound of a McIntosh 6200. And they are not that similar to one another. But they both represent a musical truth that I can find.
I think most all of us would agree that none of our systems sound alike. That is because we all listen for different qaulities. And we all want our systems to sound better and there is a constant desire to find something that will improve our systems more than the price would indicate is possible. Classical 1 didn't hear the cones but hears the fluid. I don't find that unusual.
Problems arise when we are presented with the dilema of we want to believe but we don't want to be taken advantage of. It is the dilema of a salesperson everyday. How to present a product or idea as better when the client has in the back of their mind they don't want to be taken in. There's no one answer any more than one answer suffices for any qualitative judgement I can think of.
Presenting that idea, though, does seem to be a part of why we are all on this forum. To learn and decide what works for us. It seems to work well when minds are kept open and ideas are presented as nothing more than ideas. We're all capable of making up our own minds. I know I have gotten a burr under my saddle when someone has tried to tell me I can't hear or see what I know I just heard or saw. But I hope I've not been a pain about my opinions. Like John wanting proof of the fluid's value I want proof of SACD's value. I haven't found it yet but I'll keep looking and listening. On the other hand, Rick's prompting made me go back and try other options with regard to the speaker placement. That has been a great success.
I would suggest that no one dismiss any idea and no one take offense at another's words or ideas. Try what you like and can afford. If it works for you that is the result of listening. If next week you find something you think works better then let us all know.
As long as all ideas are taken as helpful there should be no problem along the way. Hopefully we will all benefit from the trip.

That was long winded wasn't it? Now it's back to the mineral spirits.

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:46 pm:

Before I go get a good whiff :

There was a short quote in the last issue of Newsweek from Bill Cosby that relates to perception.

Bill Cosby had been to a Ray Charles concert. After the performance Cosby walked backstage to greet Charles. He made the remark, "Ray, that was great. But all of you band members are white."
Ray Charles replied, "Really? They don't sound white."

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 03:51 pm:

From the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/business/yourmoney/10theater.html?oref=login&t h

Silver Member

Username: Ghiacabriolet

NC

Post Number: 433
Registered: Apr-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 04:05 pm:

Jan wrote:

wooly worms are particularly thick and dark this year. That means we're going to have a hard, cold winter.)

They do this in TX too?!? I thought this was just an NC thing. We have a Woolly Worm festival every year to help predict winter....back to reading your post.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 546
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 05:17 pm:

Jan,

I'm starting to feel all warm and fuzzy, tell me another bedtime story Uncle Jan......PLEASE?

I finished my stands today. They now stand 10" tall with new maple top plates. Keep in mind I don't have the brass conepoints under the base, or front of the speaker for time alignment yet. With the S3/5's flat on the stands the bass is still strong and full and doesn't seem as boomy as it does directly on the floor. The soundstage is both wide and tall. The midrange also smoothes out a bit better at 10". I can't wait to get the conepoints in place, as I'm sure that will fill in the last piece of the puzzle. I'll let you know.

Oh, you asked if I heard any sonic benefit with warm up with the 6100....Yes, it sounds better after "on" for an hour or so. Warmer, for lack of a better term.

Ghia,

I am trying to cover some earlier posts. As to the Mac cabinet, I decided to go with rosewood. You have to understand or know my cabinetmaker friend. He is a wonderful human being and friend, but he has back orders for 6 months. I will get my cabinet, it will be beautiful, by when is anybody's quess. I am not surprised by any of your observations regarding the 6200. Sorry to hear about the Spendors.......I can't wait for your opinion with the Mac. Have you tried any other speaker placement{s}? Would love to hear you thoughts.

Rantz,

You see, you have it all wrong again! It's always easier if I'M WRONG and all the rest of you are right! LOL!

Glad I could clear that up...................

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 05:58 pm:

Rick - All right but this is the last one.

Once upon a time there was a Republican President who thought everything was going just hunky-dorie. Then along came a good Massachusets Liberal and his brave South Carolinian side kick with really white teeth...

Aww, the little guy's asleep all ready.

Looks like he's having nightmares again.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 547
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:08 pm:

That's a REALLY scary story Uncle Jan.

They aren't friends of that mean old Uncle Teddy are they? We all know what He did!

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 809
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:18 pm:

No, no, Rick! I'm wrong. I insist :-)

Glad to hear that all the floor crawling, strange looks and ridicule are becoming mere bumps in the road to achieving "that sound" - next up the Walker 'Vivid' CD enhancer. But beware a good bollicking from John A if you come back with a postive review. I wonder if anyone has actually tried "Snake Oil" hmmm - maybe I should trademark that name. Speaking of snake oil, and thanks to a big audio fair/sale/see-them-coming exravaganza this weekend, I upgraded the audio interconnects with some fair priced, made in China, silver soldered, 99.9% oxy free, 24k gold-plated, ultra-conductive OFC cable with clamped metal cases. Sounds like really impressive stuff, but did it make for more impressive sound? I 'think' it helped to make the sound slightly more revealing than with the 'Radio Shack' type I was using - 'think' being the operative word here - as slight as the difference may be, it could be a psychological one also. More so because I think this audio business tends to make one a bit insane anyhow.

Ghia,

Apology accepted. I'll be interested in your audio comparisons and would like to be there for them, because after hearing Steely Dan's Guacho on SACD 5.1 through our Denon 2900/Marantz 7300/JBL/B&W set up, I would find it hard to believe that anything else could sound better - a far- reaching I know, but even my better half was in awe.

And I like it when she is in awe :-)

Yes Jan, more good stories and, like I said, write a book. That way we can read them to our grandkids.

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 548
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 06:51 pm:

Rantz,

Uncle Jan is scaring me..................Make him stop!

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 810
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 07:01 pm:

Rick,

Just repeat after me: George is good. George is good. George is . . .

It worked for me. I chanted: Little Johnny is good. Little Johnny is good . . .

And he won with a clear majority! No more nightmares. :-)

J. Vigne

Unregistered guest

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 09:13 pm:

Rick - Wait til I get to the part about the gruff old V.P.
Talk about scary!

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 549
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:38 pm:

George is g_ _ _. George is g_ _ _. Well George

is George. George is George.

at least he's Republican.

Sem

Silver Member

Username: Sem

New York
USA

Post Number: 275
Registered: Mar-04

Posted on Sunday, October 10, 2004 - 11:52 pm:

Hey, careful what you spread on these internets....You wouldn't want anyone thinking this is a political forum now would you???

Silver Member

Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 811
Registered: Aug-04

Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 12:31 am:

What! George is a Republican!

What was I thinking?

Oh, that's right! George the publican.

Phew!

George is good . . . George is good . . .

Silver Member

Username: Rick_b

New York
USA

Post Number: 550
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 06:22 am:

Sem,

Thank you. You know the saying, there is nothing more personal than ones politics, religion, and hifi.

I just can't resist a good bedtime story! LOL

John A.

Gold Member

Username: John_a

Post Number: 2240
Registered: Dec-03

Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 07:47 am:

Sorry to be slow. I had to change my contact e-mail, the old one was was not working, or delivered messages days late. Somehow I got unregistered in the process, and could not post on Sunday at all. Let me make brief points; will be back.

re "vivid" disc treatment; I wrote lots on this but it is fairly arcane, about statistics and such. For now....

Classical 1,

"I mean well - I really do."

I am sure of it. And I thank you for sharing what you think.

" John A. - you seem like a person who loves to shoot down what you don't understand."

No, totally not. That is a very serious charge, sir!.

"IF you try something, then label it hocum, fine. But may I suggest that you try a product, then criticize."

Yes, of course, but, by then, the'll have my $45 or whatever.

Seems to me Old Dogs could do a pretty good test. For example, we could make some disc images from treated and untreated disc copies, otherwise idential, post them under a password to be sent off-line (I can do that), download, and compare. Someone, not in the test, will need to keep the key to which disc is which, not to be revealed until we have all answered all the questions, the first being: "do you hear any difference between disc copy a and disc copy b?" "Yes" OR "No"?

If "Vivid" claim the stuff does not work if you make digital copies from the treated discs, we've got them checkmate in one move.

Jan,

This wil seem glib after your great and detailed arguments. I promise/threaten to write more.

But...

I have the faith that if I percieve a result that fits into my frame of how and why that is enough for me.

Well, you don't need faith in that; you know it.

And isn't that the sort of thing the nuns said....?

But if I have satisfied myself with the results that is good enough for me.

That's just what we all do all the time.

I'll pass on the results and if someone else wants to give it a try that's fine by me.

That is a point on which we agree, and I imagine the nuns would not. It makes all the difference.

As long as all ideas are taken as helpful there should be no problem along the way.

There are some very bad and unhelpful ideas in the world, in my opinion.

$45 on some stuff to put on CDs is not such a big deal, admittedly (to us: it is still month's income in some parts of the world). But the principle is the same.

"Here is something you will want; you cannot know how good it is until you've bought it, for reasons of copyright/intellectual property/whatever;..."

"... and it works like this "blah blah ...molecular structure ...blah blah ...musically but not sonically...dielectric...ancient Indian recipe...blah blah...from organically-grown snakes.../whatever".

Oh yes, "...and many clever and learned people have believed it, so what makes you so arrogant that you think you know better than they do....?"

Jan, I think we must both be still reliving damaging experiences in our formative years!

All the best.

PS Have registered a new e-mail alias on this forum inspired by this thread; every string of characters has significance, some unintended, even ".com". Hope nobody minds. I can change it, if someone does.

Must go.

Rick,

"George is George"

Now we're getting somewhere!

PS Spendor way to go by Nov HFN