Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: REG on REG

Expand Messages
  • mm
    I am very impressed with the Steinway-Lyngdorf S model and am still keen on it. I trust the biologists working on evolution more than the banksters. Yip
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 1, 2012
      I am very impressed with the Steinway-Lyngdorf "S" model and am still keen on it.

      I trust the biologists working on evolution more than the banksters.

      Yip

      --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@...> wrote:
      >
      > YMM and I are on pretty much the same wavelength! Always
      > have been. (Except on evolutionary biology!)
      > REG
      >
      > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "mm" <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
      > >
      > > SP1/2 with subs.-2nd choice. I know I am not REG but I still do have all these speakers.
      > >
      > > Yip
      > >
      > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Charles Chau <cshchau@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > BC1 + sub??
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > > > From: will_hum@
      > > > Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:34:00 -0400
      > > > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: REG on REG
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > I like this thread... along those lines... If you had to give up the M40, what would you replace them with? M40.1 or .... ??
      > > >
      > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > From: Tom Mallin
      > > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > > > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 11:24 AM
      > > > Subject: Re: [regsaudioforum] Re: REG on REG
      > > >
      > > > Or the Harbeth M40? If you could only have one pair of speakers in your house for listening for pleasure, which would it be? And if you could only have one pair for reviewing, which would that be? Would the for-pleasure speakers be the same as the for-reviewing speakers?
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 9:18 AM, ddm261125 <ddm261125@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > nice! I remember your review of Gradient Revolutions (around 1995. ?) where you said "... if i'll be forced to give up the 63's, the Revolutions will be on the short list of the candidates...".That review inspired me and I switched from the 63's to the revolutions,since my experience about the Quads was more or less as yours! A few years latter I tried the 988 but still prefer the Revolutions!
      > > > What would you choose today, the 2805 or the Revolutions?
      > > >
      > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > Reviewing the reviewers: REG on REG
      > > > >
      > > > > As everyone has noticed, I like to comment on other people's published views and measurements. Yesterday I ran across a TAS issue(issue 52) in which I had written up the Quad US Monitor version of the Quad 63. And it occurred to me that it might be interesting for me to look at this as if someone else had written it. It is after all a long time ago!
      > > > > So I read through. Here are my impressions:
      > > > > 1 The view is very accurate and well informed in the literal sense. There is little I would see fit to change in retrospect about the actual factual description of the speaker. All the things I said
      > > > > about the response and the phase linearity and the low distortion and controlled radiation pattern are true.
      > > > >
      > > > > 2 Certain things, while described with literal truth, about where audio was going turned out to be wrong. For example, I say that phase linearity is becoming regarded as more important, though I do not exactly commit myself on whether it is sensible to regard it so and I quote Peter Walker's resolute denial that it was anything like a design goal(or mattered audible) in the Quad ESL 63 and its successors. I carry on a bit about the visual preservation of square waves. I would not make much of a big deal about that today, and of course the field has largely ignored the whole thing—with some exceptions.
      > > > > 3 Probably the biggest change is that as I look back, while I admit the faults of the speaker, I was surely unaware of how I would come to be much more annoyed by them than I was at that time. I do for example say that the speaker is lean. And I also point out that the treble is irregular and inclined to be "glassy". And I remarked on the "drummy" resonant character of the bass, such as there is of it. What I did not know at the time was that eventually I would come to find all these things taken together something I did not want to live with any longer—for all the other virtues, which I also point out enthusiastically.
      > > > >
      > > > > 4 I also under-rated the importance of room effects. I did not seem at that time to appreciate the fact that the hole in the 100 to 300 Hz region could not really be eliminated(except by EQ) and that it was really not a good thing. I had noticed it and mention it, but I make excuses and do not emphasize what I would now, that there are speakers that do much better in this regard. In particular, by issue
      > > > > 82 I am learning fast courtesy of Sigtech how much better things
      > > > > sound if one gets this fixed--and how some speakers do not need much fixing! (while the Quads do).
      > > > >
      > > > > The whole review sounds still intelligent to me. I do not read it and think , what ignoramous wrote this? To myself, I sound intelligent and well informed--but also somewhat oriented in a different way from how I am today. If I were writing it today, the emphasis would surely be different. I suppose this illustrates how a review can be actually almost completely correct and yet come up with a conclusion that would not be something someone else would agree with. I do not disagree with anything much that I wrote(except that phase linearity stuff I have changed my view of a bit, through having the opportunity with DSP to switch it on and off in other speakers, something I had not done much of at that point). But at the time, I seemed in love with the speakers. Later on, we got divorced, the Quads and I. Amicably, but divorced even so.
      > > > > Interesting to look at anyway.
      > > > >
      > > > > REG
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Fred
      That s a revealingly candid answer. I can t help wondering how you might have answered that same question by Mark had he put it to you in the same year you
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 2, 2012
        That's a revealingly candid answer.
        I can't help wondering how you might have answered that same question by Mark had he put it to you in the same year you wrote the review.

        Fred.



        From: Robert <regtas43@...>
        To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 1:01
        Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: REG on REG

         
        I was young, I was impressionable, I was in patticular
        impressed by certain audiophile ideas that I had not yet figured out
        were pretty much nonsense(or so I believe now), and ,most of all,
        I was using the DMA50 amplifier with the one of the few speakers
        that it could actually drive! namely the Quad 63.
        It really did sound good with the Quads--I
        sold it without trouble to a Quad owner
        and he lived happily ever after with it as
        far as I know.

        Everyone has an apprenticeship. And while
        I should have worried more about the fact
        that the DMA50 was completely unstable without heavy
        radio frequency filtering, most of the things
        I said about how it sounded were true--if you
        let it drive the Quads.

        But the amplifier really was no good for much else.
        It had almost no current capability and could
        only drive speakers like the Quads that are
        essentially voltage only devices(of course no
        speaker can be literally that since with no current
        there would be no power, but the Quads get quite
        close).

        But I plead guilty to be taken in by some aspects of unsubstantiated
        audiophilia (as I would think of it today). I did not yet have
        enough independence of mind, faith in my own judgment
        and my own powers of analysis of the situation,
        simply to tell the whole field --or what seemed
        like the whole field at that time--that all this stuff
        about megaHertz bandwidth was just crazy. Or at least
        truly un-necessary.

        Looking back, I am much more nearly satisfied with
        the review of the Quad 306 and 606 I wrote.
        That is not perfect either--I under-rated the
        significance in audible terms of the bottom end
        rolloff(and to some extent of the top end rolloff).
        But at least I am calling for raionality.

        Still honestly and truly I am somewhat embarrassed
        by the quoted capsule of the Spectral DMA-50.

        It really took me a while to figure out
        how things worked. I am not entirely happy
        with all my remarks about early digital either--
        though in fact it usually did sound bad.
        One lives and learns--or at least if one is lucky
        one learns.

        And I did pick a good speaker --I bought my Spendor BC1s
        BEFORE I was a TASer in the sense of working for them in
        any capacity.

        What happened there was that HP , when I started
        to work as a record reviewer, felt I needed somehow
        a more august speaker, as it were, than the BC1s.
        I did not really like any of the speakers that came
        easily to audiophile mind--except the Quads.
        I knew the Quads had some problems(and they sounded
        less like violins than the BC1s). But given that
        I had to get something more impressive so to speak, the Quads
        seemed the best choice. And I did come to like them--
        thought they never sounded exactly right. Even my
        rave reviews if one reads carefully point out the things
        that were (and are) wrong.

        But when I think of the abominable stuff that
        one could have bought--the hateful Dahlquists, the rattling tin
        Infinity IRS Beta, and so on.... I did not do too badly.

        Most of the time I had something that sounded
        fairly good. And I started EQing the Quads--and putting them
        really close to the floor if not right on--early on.
        And I rejected the Arcici stands, which led to a hole
        in the 100-300 Hz regions as deep as the Black Canyon of the
        Gunnison River.

        I do look back at some things with embarrassment--
        but I think I did not learn too too slowly!
        And truth be told, it is a rather subtle subject, audio!

        REG

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Mark M" <markjmills@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > Robert,
        >
        > Now that you started down this road, revisiting older reviews and opinions, I've long wondered how you would square your rather positive review of the Spectral DMA-50 (in TAS 50) with your later comments, strewn throughout this forum, which can be boiled down to your calling it a "piece of junk." With apologies to the original copyright holder, below is your capsule review in full, for the benefit of those who do not have back issues of TAS:
        >
        > ********************
        > Spectral DMA-50
        >
        > This is the fastest, along with the other Spectral amps, and, in my experience, the most literally accurate amplifier manufactured to date. The designers seem to have solved problems beyond the previous limits of electronics design. The result is the cleanest, clearest, least grungy sound available to my knowledge. The DMA-50 is accurate and neutral, not euphonic, not any kind of artificial warmth or depth generator. But, surprisingly enough, even badly recorded material sounds its best, because the amp is not smearing it any further. And, of course, good material sounds superb. (One warning: the DMA-50 is flat to almost forever; don't expect it to ease top-end nasties from elsewhere in your system.) If you need no more than the 80 watts/channel provided–e.g., if you own Quad ESL-63s–you can buy this and forget about amplification for a long time, while you try to make the rest of your system as good. Nonsonic bonuses: the DMA-50 is small, cool, quiet (with no external buzzes), reliable, and pretty. Price: $2495. (DAW's original review, Issue 43, was roughly as enthusiastic as mine here. He describes the highs as extroverted; I am inclined to think they are just accurate. I own the DMA-50, but did not review it. I have not heard the new Spectral DMA-200 for comparison.)
        > ********************
        >
        > As your capsule referenced Dave Wilson's earlier full review in TAS 43, I'll sum up his thoughts by quoting his conclusory words about the amp: "The DMA-50 presents a real challenge to a reviewer because, in some respects, it is quite simply the best I have ever heard." People may differ with Dave in his approach to audio, or regarding his speaker design choices, but I don't think anyone has ever called him (or, for that matter, you) deaf.
        >
        > So what caused such a wildly received amp to go from, if not king of the hill at least a prince, to a "piece of junk" - and why was this opinion never openly shared with TAS readers? In my reading of your subsequent comments on this site, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, your vituperation seems to be addressed to issues concerning power conditioning, RF interference, and oscillation/instability...but NOT sound quality. FWIW, I have owned a DMA-50 for close on to 20 years, and not once have I picked up stray radio broadcasts, despite having lived in NYC, an extremely challenging RF environment (not to mention challenging power issues in that city as well). Never had the amp shut down, oscillate, blow up, or act untoward in any way, nor has anyone else I know had these issues.
        >
        > I applaud reconsideration of previously-held opinions - we would hardly learn, grow, or develop were we to fail to challenge ourselves every day. Your language, though, seems quite intemperate, especially given that your comments appear to focus on external environmental issues you say you suffered, perhaps uniquely as others do not have the same issues, rather than the primary issue concerning music lovers, the sheer quality of sound. Do you go overboard in now describing this wonderful little amp as "junk"?
        >
        > Best regards, Mark
        >
        >
        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Reviewing the reviewers: REG on REG
        > >
        > > As everyone has noticed, I like to comment on other people's published views and measurements. Yesterday I ran across a TAS issue(issue 52) in which I had written up the Quad US Monitor version of the Quad 63. And it occurred to me that it might be interesting for me to look at this as if someone else had written it. It is after all a long time ago!
        > >
        > > REG
        > >
        >



      • Robert
        When I wrote the capsule(not a full review--that was done by Wilson earlier), I had one view. But six months or a year later, when I had had occasion to try
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 2, 2012
          When I wrote the capsule(not a full review--that
          was done by Wilson earlier), I had one view. But six months
          or a year later, when I had had occasion to try the amplifier
          with a lot of box speakers, I would have said much
          the same as now. I did find out what the amp was
          like fairly soon. It sounded just awful with
          speakers that were even a little current hungry.
          It did not last long in our house!
          REG



          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@...> wrote:
          >
          > That's a revealingly candid answer.
          > I can't help wondering how you might have answered that same question by Mark had he put it to you in the same year you wrote the review.
          >
          > Fred.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >________________________________
          > > From: Robert <regtas43@...>
          > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
          > >Sent: Saturday, 1 September 2012, 1:01
          > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: REG on REG
          > >
          > >
          > > 
          > >I was young, I was impressionable, I was in patticular
          > >impressed by certain audiophile ideas that I had not yet figured out
          > >were pretty much nonsense(or so I believe now), and ,most of all,
          > >I was using the DMA50 amplifier with the one of the few speakers
          > >that it could actually drive! namely the Quad 63.
          > >It really did sound good with the Quads--I
          > >sold it without trouble to a Quad owner
          > >and he lived happily ever after with it as
          > >far as I know.
          > >
          > >Everyone has an apprenticeship. And while
          > >I should have worried more about the fact
          > >that the DMA50 was completely unstable without heavy
          > >radio frequency filtering, most of the things
          > >I said about how it sounded were true--if you
          > >let it drive the Quads.
          > >
          > >But the amplifier really was no good for much else.
          > >It had almost no current capability and could
          > >only drive speakers like the Quads that are
          > >essentially voltage only devices(of course no
          > >speaker can be literally that since with no current
          > >there would be no power, but the Quads get quite
          > >close).
          > >
          > >But I plead guilty to be taken in by some aspects of unsubstantiated
          > >audiophilia (as I would think of it today). I did not yet have
          > >enough independence of mind, faith in my own judgment
          > >and my own powers of analysis of the situation,
          > >simply to tell the whole field --or what seemed
          > >like the whole field at that time--that all this stuff
          > >about megaHertz bandwidth was just crazy. Or at least
          > >truly un-necessary.
          > >
          > >Looking back, I am much more nearly satisfied with
          > >the review of the Quad 306 and 606 I wrote.
          > >That is not perfect either--I under-rated the
          > >significance in audible terms of the bottom end
          > >rolloff(and to some extent of the top end rolloff).
          > >But at least I am calling for raionality.
          > >
          > >Still honestly and truly I am somewhat embarrassed
          > >by the quoted capsule of the Spectral DMA-50.
          > >
          > >It really took me a while to figure out
          > >how things worked. I am not entirely happy
          > >with all my remarks about early digital either--
          > >though in fact it usually did sound bad.
          > >One lives and learns--or at least if one is lucky
          > >one learns.
          > >
          > >And I did pick a good speaker --I bought my Spendor BC1s
          > >BEFORE I was a TASer in the sense of working for them in
          > >any capacity.
          > >
          > >What happened there was that HP , when I started
          > >to work as a record reviewer, felt I needed somehow
          > >a more august speaker, as it were, than the BC1s.
          > >I did not really like any of the speakers that came
          > >easily to audiophile mind--except the Quads.
          > >I knew the Quads had some problems(and they sounded
          > >less like violins than the BC1s). But given that
          > >I had to get something more impressive so to speak, the Quads
          > >seemed the best choice. And I did come to like them--
          > >thought they never sounded exactly right. Even my
          > >rave reviews if one reads carefully point out the things
          > >that were (and are) wrong.
          > >
          > >But when I think of the abominable stuff that
          > >one could have bought--the hateful Dahlquists, the rattling tin
          > >Infinity IRS Beta, and so on.... I did not do too badly.
          > >
          > >Most of the time I had something that sounded
          > >fairly good. And I started EQing the Quads--and putting them
          > >really close to the floor if not right on--early on.
          > >And I rejected the Arcici stands, which led to a hole
          > >in the 100-300 Hz regions as deep as the Black Canyon of the
          > >Gunnison River.
          > >
          > >I do look back at some things with embarrassment--
          > >but I think I did not learn too too slowly!
          > >And truth be told, it is a rather subtle subject, audio!
          > >
          > >REG
          > >
          > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Mark M" <markjmills@> wrote:
          > >>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> Robert,
          > >>
          > >> Now that you started down this road, revisiting older reviews and opinions, I've long wondered how you would square your rather positive review of the Spectral DMA-50 (in TAS 50) with your later comments, strewn throughout this forum, which can be boiled down to your calling it a "piece of junk." With apologies to the original copyright holder, below is your capsule review in full, for the benefit of those who do not have back issues of TAS:
          > >>
          > >> ********************
          > >> Spectral DMA-50
          > >>
          > >> This is the fastest, along with the other Spectral amps, and, in my experience, the most literally accurate amplifier manufactured to date. The designers seem to have solved problems beyond the previous limits of electronics design. The result is the cleanest, clearest, least grungy sound available to my knowledge. The DMA-50 is accurate and neutral, not euphonic, not any kind of artificial warmth or depth generator. But, surprisingly enough, even badly recorded material sounds its best, because the amp is not smearing it any further. And, of course, good material sounds superb. (One warning: the DMA-50 is flat to almost forever; don't expect it to ease top-end nasties from elsewhere in your system.) If you need no more than the 80 watts/channel providedâ€"e.g., if you own Quad ESL-63sâ€"you can buy this and forget about amplification for a long time, while you try to make the rest of your system as good. Nonsonic bonuses: the DMA-50 is small,
          > cool, quiet (with no external buzzes), reliable, and pretty. Price: $2495. (DAW's original review, Issue 43, was roughly as enthusiastic as mine here. He describes the highs as extroverted; I am inclined to think they are just accurate. I own the DMA-50, but did not review it. I have not heard the new Spectral DMA-200 for comparison.)
          > >> ********************
          > >>
          > >> As your capsule referenced Dave Wilson's earlier full review in TAS 43, I'll sum up his thoughts by quoting his conclusory words about the amp: "The DMA-50 presents a real challenge to a reviewer because, in some respects, it is quite simply the best I have ever heard." People may differ with Dave in his approach to audio, or regarding his speaker design choices, but I don't think anyone has ever called him (or, for that matter, you) deaf.
          > >>
          > >> So what caused such a wildly received amp to go from, if not king of the hill at least a prince, to a "piece of junk" - and why was this opinion never openly shared with TAS readers? In my reading of your subsequent comments on this site, and please forgive me if I'm wrong, your vituperation seems to be addressed to issues concerning power conditioning, RF interference, and oscillation/instability...but NOT sound quality. FWIW, I have owned a DMA-50 for close on to 20 years, and not once have I picked up stray radio broadcasts, despite having lived in NYC, an extremely challenging RF environment (not to mention challenging power issues in that city as well). Never had the amp shut down, oscillate, blow up, or act untoward in any way, nor has anyone else I know had these issues.
          > >>
          > >> I applaud reconsideration of previously-held opinions - we would hardly learn, grow, or develop were we to fail to challenge ourselves every day. Your language, though, seems quite intemperate, especially given that your comments appear to focus on external environmental issues you say you suffered, perhaps uniquely as others do not have the same issues, rather than the primary issue concerning music lovers, the sheer quality of sound. Do you go overboard in now describing this wonderful little amp as "junk"?
          > >>
          > >> Best regards, Mark
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regtas43@> wrote:
          > >> >
          > >> > Reviewing the reviewers: REG on REG
          > >> >
          > >> > As everyone has noticed, I like to comment on other people's published views and measurements. Yesterday I ran across a TAS issue(issue 52) in which I had written up the Quad US Monitor version of the Quad 63. And it occurred to me that it might be interesting for me to look at this as if someone else had written it. It is after all a long time ago!
          > >> >
          > >> > REG
          > >> >
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
        »
        «