Experience with ultra-exotic hi-fi systems?

[brassplyer]

Ever listened to, worked on, evaluated, helped design and/or build - or even own a mega-dollar hi-fi system such as those in the link?

Do you feel there's at least some gain for the mountain of money even if diminishing ROI, were you blown away or do you think there's no reason to spend that much if your true goal is excellent sound?

https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-loudspeakers

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Brassplyer wrote:

-----------------


** You need to put "OT" in the heading for posts like this.

Better still, don't post **** like this at all.

Cos it looks just like a troll.



...... Phil

[brassplyer]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 1:11:00 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

> ** You need to put "OT" in the heading for posts like this.


No I don't. If you're willing to pay me 100k American dollars, I'll consider following your directives regarding what I post. Otherwise you're exercising your fingers sport. My advice is to ignore topics you're not interested in. Or get yourself worked up and add static with no information.

[UnsteadyKen[_7_]]

In article >,
says...
> My advice is to ignore topics you're not interested in.
> Or get yourself worked up and add static with no information.
>
Said someone who has just replied to spam in-group ensuring the spam
gets nicely propagated AND wishing the spammer died in a painful way.

Pot Kettle etc.

[John Williamson]

On 14/06/2017 06:21, Brassplyer wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 1:11:00 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> ** You need to put "OT" in the heading for posts like this.
>
>
> No I don't. If you're willing to pay me 100k American dollars, I'll consider following your directives regarding what I post. Otherwise you're exercising your fingers sport. My advice is to ignore topics you're not interested in. Or get yourself worked up and add static with no information.
>
Politeness on usenet is to mark any post you make which is not directly
connected to the group theme by "OT" or "Off Topic", so that anyone not
interested doesn't have to read the post before deciding it's a load of
rubbish and therefore uninteresting.

Not doing so invites a flaming and joining other undesirables in many
killfiles. (And if you don't know what that means, you really are not
fit to be n usenet).

So, if you want people to carry on reading your posts, stick to the
rules, or risk being blocked.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 14/06/2017 05:47, Brassplyer wrote:
> Ever listened to, worked on, evaluated, helped design and/or build - or even own a mega-dollar hi-fi system such as those in the link?
>
> Do you feel there's at least some gain for the mountain of money even if diminishing ROI, were you blown away or do you think there's no reason to spend that much if your true goal is excellent sound?
>
> https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-loudspeakers
>
Bling for those with more money than sense. Speaker cainets cast in gold
will sound no better than ones cast in other metals.

Then, of course, there's the room design to look into, which will make
more difference for much less money.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 11:30:22 +0100, John Williamson
> wrote:

>On 14/06/2017 05:47, Brassplyer wrote:
>> Ever listened to, worked on, evaluated, helped design and/or build - or even own a mega-dollar hi-fi system such as those in the link?
>>
>> Do you feel there's at least some gain for the mountain of money even if diminishing ROI, were you blown away or do you think there's no reason to spend that much if your true goal is excellent sound?
>>
>> https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-loudspeakers
>>
>Bling for those with more money than sense. Speaker cainets cast in gold
>will sound no better than ones cast in other metals.
>
>Then, of course, there's the room design to look into, which will make
>more difference for much less money.

As a general rule, every added driver is an added source of comb
filtering, and hence a bad thing. Speakers need to be physically as
minimal as physics will allow if they are to perform well.

One look at this lot confirms, unfortunately, that they have not been
designed from good acoustic principles.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/14/2017 6:44 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
> As a general rule, every added driver is an added source of comb
> filtering, and hence a bad thing. Speakers need to be physically as
> minimal as physics will allow if they are to perform well.

Yes, that's a general rule, but there are exceptional designs where
what's broken by that rule is fixed by the design. It's usually not a
simple, clever solution. Take for example, well respected DSP designer
Bruno Putzeys' Kii Three speaker which uses multiple speakers with a
frequency-dependent time alignment (in reality, phase alignment) to
eliminate rearward radiation while keeping forward radiation
phase-aligned. This isn't your grandfather's crossover. They cost
$14,000 per pair.

http://kiiaudio.com/en/

You can read a thorough review of the speaker in Sound on Sound magazine
which, by the way, is for studio recordists and musicians and not an
audiophile magazine

kiiaudio.com/en/component/phocadownload/category/1-revies.html?download=8:sound-on-sound-january-2017


I understand Phil's passion for not feeding trolls, but I don't see this
discussion as a troll if we don't turn into one. But it's a valid
observation that not too many of the folks who visit this newsgroup have
much interest in, or knowledge of high end audiophile gear. So it's not
a very good group to get an unbiased answer to a "what if?" question.
However, if you were to go to an audiophile forum and ask this question,
it would be like asking the pope if he thought that Catholicism was
worthwhile.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Trevor]

On 14/06/2017 8:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
> As a general rule, every added driver is an added source of comb
> filtering, and hence a bad thing.

Only in the range over which 2 or more drivers are operating, and then
depending on separation Vs wavelength.

> Speakers need to be physically as
> minimal as physics will allow if they are to perform well.

To paraphrase Einstein, as simple as possible but NO simpler. THAT
however is VERY subjective depending on the desired outcome you are
trying to achieve. Achieving a fairly flat frequency response is
relatively easy if bass extension and dynamic range are not a
consideration. Tiny bookshelf speakers will NOT compete with those huge
5 way systems if they are however.

>
> One look at this lot confirms, unfortunately, that they have not been
> designed from good acoustic principles.

Apart from the golden speakers which are designed to be looked at rather
than listened to, they are all appear to be designed to good acoustic
principles for one parameter or another. Sadly speakers require more
conflicting compromises in design than any other part of the audio chain
regardless of cost. It is not surprising every designer makes different
choices as to what he wishes to achieve. Of course when we are talking
about such stupid prices the only real goal is to attract those with
more money than sense, so actual sound performance is fairly irrelevant.
Just as a Rolls Royce is not expected to outperform a Ferrari on any
measurable parameter. (except perhaps cabin noise I guess) They still
appeal to many who can afford them for other reasons. Mostly as a
statement of wealth. The problem I see with all such speakers however is
that unlike a Rolls Royce, most normal people have no idea what they are
worth, so defeats the purpose of ostentatious wealth on which they rely.
Clearly nobody expects them to actually sound better than far cheaper
options from B&W, Dynaudio etc. Exclusivity alone is pointless, there
are plenty of cheap speakers nobody has heard of, and/or have sold very few.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Brassplyer > wrote:
>Ever listened to, worked on, evaluated, helped design and/or build - or even own a mega-dollar hi-fi system such as those in the link?

Yes.

>Do you feel there's at least some gain for the mountain of money even if diminishing ROI, were you blown away or do you think there's no reason to spend that much if your true goal is excellent sound?

Yes, there is. However, because there is a market for expensive hi-fi stuff,
and because customers often have more money than listening skill, people have
moved in to sell lots of fraudulent stuff.

You can go into a stereo show today and listen to a pair of B&W speakers that
were originally intended as studio monitors, and which are amazingly clean.
And then you can go into the room next door and listen to some horribly
cobbled-together horn system that sounds excruciatingly awful and costs twice
as much.

And people buy them both.

I strongly recommend going to a stereo show and getting a sense of what is
out there. Because there are some excellent speakers out there and some
pretty dreadful ones. And most of the people buying them (and most of the
ones selling them) don't really know the difference.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

>
> Yes, that's a general rule, but there are exceptional designs where
> what's broken by that rule is fixed by the design. It's usually not a
> simple, clever solution. Take for example, well respected DSP designer
> Bruno Putzeys' Kii Three speaker which uses multiple speakers with a
> frequency-dependent time alignment (in reality, phase alignment) to
> eliminate rearward radiation while keeping forward radiation
> phase-aligned.

If the drivers are in different locations, they can be phased aligned across a frequency range at ONLY one location in space. I don't care how fancy the DSP is.

m

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/14/2017 10:25 AM, wrote:
> If the drivers are in different locations, they can be phased aligned across a frequency range at ONLY one location in space. I don't care how fancy the DSP is.

Did you read the article? I probably oversimplified too greatly to
satisfy a brilliant mind such as yours.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, that's a general rule, but there are exceptional designs where
>> what's broken by that rule is fixed by the design. It's usually not a
>> simple, clever solution. Take for example, well respected DSP designer
>> Bruno Putzeys' Kii Three speaker which uses multiple speakers with a
>> frequency-dependent time alignment (in reality, phase alignment) to
>> eliminate rearward radiation while keeping forward radiation
>> phase-aligned.
>
>If the drivers are in different locations, they can be phased aligned across a frequency range at ONLY one location in space. I don't care how fancy the DSP is.

And that is the key: get the acoustic centers of the drivers as close as
possible to one another. Which is what coaxial systems do.

If you can't do that, you can at least stack them horizontally so that the
system can be accurately aligned across a horizontal plane. A lot of speaker
design consists of figuring out ways to move off-axis problems to places
where they are less offensive.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 14/06/2017 10:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

>>> https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-loudspeakers
>>>
>> Bling for those with more money than sense. Speaker cainets cast in gold
>> will sound no better than ones cast in other metals.
>>
>> Then, of course, there's the room design to look into, which will make
>> more difference for much less money.
>
> As a general rule, every added driver is an added source of comb
> filtering, and hence a bad thing. Speakers need to be physically as
> minimal as physics will allow if they are to perform well.
>
> One look at this lot confirms, unfortunately, that they have not been
> designed from good acoustic principles.

I was hoping that it was a 1 April edition .

geoff

[brassplyer]

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> Politeness on usenet is to mark any post you make which is not directly
> connected to the group theme by "OT" or "Off Topic", so that anyone not
> interested doesn't have to read the post before deciding it's a load of
> rubbish and therefore uninteresting.


It seems self-evident to me that a pool of people who deal with the physics, mechanics & hardware of sound recording, sound propagation and listening including contemplating how it's going to translate to a broad variety of playback hardware are likely to have insight and opinions regarding a particular category of sound propagation hardware. The informational replies to this thread bear this out.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Brassplyer wrote:

--------------------

> On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-4, John Williamson wrote:
> > Politeness on usenet is to mark any post you make which is not directly
> > connected to the group theme by "OT" or "Off Topic", so that anyone not
> > interested doesn't have to read the post before deciding it's a load of
> > rubbish and therefore uninteresting.
>
>
> It seems self-evident to me
>

** Here we go.

that a pool of people who deal with the physics, mechanics & hardware of sound recording, sound propagation and listening including contemplating how it's going to translate to a broad variety of playback hardware are likely to have insight and opinions regarding a particular category of sound propagation hardware.


** What you posted is merely a category of scam.


The informational replies to this thread bear this out.


** No they don't.



...... Phil

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
Geoff > wrote:
>On 14/06/2017 10:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>
>>>> https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-loudspeakers
>>>>
>>> Bling for those with more money than sense. Speaker cainets cast in gold
>>> will sound no better than ones cast in other metals.
>>>
>>> Then, of course, there's the room design to look into, which will make
>>> more difference for much less money.
>>
>> As a general rule, every added driver is an added source of comb
>> filtering, and hence a bad thing. Speakers need to be physically as
>> minimal as physics will allow if they are to perform well.
>>
>> One look at this lot confirms, unfortunately, that they have not been
>> designed from good acoustic principles.
>
>I was hoping that it was a 1 April edition .

Of all the beautifully-constructed but totally misguided loudspeakers that
I have seen at audio shows over the years, I think this one is my absolute
favorite: http://www.panix.com/~kludge/audiofest14/64830004.JPG

And yes, it sounded just like you'd expect it to.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Chuck[_12_]]

On 14 Jun 2017 09:00:16 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Brassplyer > wrote:
>>Ever listened to, worked on, evaluated, helped design and/or build - or even own a mega-dollar hi-fi system such as those in the link?
>
>Yes.
>
>>Do you feel there's at least some gain for the mountain of money even if diminishing ROI, were you blown away or do you think there's no reason to spend that much if your true goal is excellent sound?
>
>Yes, there is. However, because there is a market for expensive hi-fi stuff,
>and because customers often have more money than listening skill, people have
>moved in to sell lots of fraudulent stuff.
>
>You can go into a stereo show today and listen to a pair of B&W speakers that
>were originally intended as studio monitors, and which are amazingly clean.
>And then you can go into the room next door and listen to some horribly
>cobbled-together horn system that sounds excruciatingly awful and costs twice
>as much.
>
>And people buy them both.
>
>I strongly recommend going to a stereo show and getting a sense of what is
>out there. Because there are some excellent speakers out there and some
>pretty dreadful ones. And most of the people buying them (and most of the
>ones selling them) don't really know the difference.
>--scott
A company I worked for sold a pair of planar speakers that retailed
for $20,000 in the late 80s. I would mention the speaker brand but I
discovered that they are still in business. A pair of Magneplanars
for less than a $1000.00 were superior sounding speakers. I toured
the Magneplanar plant with the owner Jim Winey who is a true gentleman
and great innovator.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 15 Jun 2017 08:57:22 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>In article >,
>Geoff > wrote:
>>On 14/06/2017 10:44 PM, Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>>>> https://www.whathifi.com/features/10-worlds-most-expensive-loudspeakers
>>>>>
>>>> Bling for those with more money than sense. Speaker cainets cast in gold
>>>> will sound no better than ones cast in other metals.
>>>>
>>>> Then, of course, there's the room design to look into, which will make
>>>> more difference for much less money.
>>>
>>> As a general rule, every added driver is an added source of comb
>>> filtering, and hence a bad thing. Speakers need to be physically as
>>> minimal as physics will allow if they are to perform well.
>>>
>>> One look at this lot confirms, unfortunately, that they have not been
>>> designed from good acoustic principles.
>>
>>I was hoping that it was a 1 April edition .
>
>Of all the beautifully-constructed but totally misguided loudspeakers that
>I have seen at audio shows over the years, I think this one is my absolute
>favorite: http://www.panix.com/~kludge/audiofest14/64830004.JPG
>
>And yes, it sounded just like you'd expect it to.
>--scott

But at least you are never going to have a ship collide with your
house.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/15/2017 8:57 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Of all the beautifully-constructed but totally misguided loudspeakers that
> I have seen at audio shows over the years, I think this one is my absolute
> favorite:http://www.panix.com/~kludge/audiofest14/64830004.JPG

I always like the one from Blue (the microphone folks) that looked like
a blue plastic sousaphone. I know I have a picture of it around here
somewhere.


--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com