*Sigh*, this is the problem with internet discussions - you tell yourself you're not going to argue anymore, and then the other person says something to draw you back in.

I can accept what you're saying about me; I don't know anything, I'm the uneducated one, blah, blah, blah, whatever.😂Honestly, it's not an ego thing here.

But, now it's just about the EQ thing and the math behind it. You want headroom for transients, but designs like B&O's stuff are using that potential headroom for bass extension.

Of course the EQ will be applied at line-level. That's a no-brainer. It would be that way whether the system is active, powered, or passive. Even if the amp had a ski-slope freq. response, the principle for power usage would be the same.

If, in the BL8000 for example, it took 10dB of EQ at 45Hz to get the  -10dB @ 48Hz freq. response stated by B&O, and you use all 150w to get a certain SPL at 45Hz, then in the upper bass/low mids where there isn't any EQ being applied, you would really have only 15 watts to work with. Do the math yourself, I promise it works out!

Anyway, what do I know? I'm stupid.

I'm done. Won't say another word in this thread, I promise.

Jon

Electrified wrote:

Electrified

Electrified wrote:

you

Electrified wrote:

could

Electrified wrote:

start

Electrified wrote:

an

Electrified wrote:

argument

Electrified wrote:

in

Electrified wrote:

an

Electrified wrote:

empty

Electrified wrote:

av forum

Jon wrote:

*Sigh*, this is the problem with internet discussions - you tell yourself you're not going to argue anymore, and then the other person says something to draw you back in.

I can accept what you're saying about me; I don't know anything, I'm the uneducated one, blah, blah, blah, whatever.😂Honestly, it's not an ego thing here.

It was you who made the statement that my posts made the B&O enthusiasts look uneducated. It's a bit late playing the victim card.

Jon wrote:

But, now it's just about the EQ thing and the math behind it. You want headroom for transients, but designs like B&O's stuff are using that potential headroom for bass extension.

They are using some of the headroom to up the bass, but far from to the extent you claim. So far from it, that I don't even find it funny you're trying to make the argument that a 40W amp driving passive speakers has more headroom than the BL5s. Seriously, do the math again. And this time take into account that all the drivers aren't amplified by a single amp. No, there are several amps in there. So not only is it done at line level, the various bandwidths are amplified separately.  The net result is an enourmous amount of headroom. Massive, in fact.

Jon wrote:

Of course the EQ will be applied at line-level. That's a no-brainer. It would be that way whether the system is active, powered, or passive. Even if the amp had a ski-slope freq. response, the principle for power usage would be the same.

If, in the BL8000 for example, it took 10dB of EQ at 45Hz to get the  -10dB @ 48Hz freq. response stated by B&O, and you use all 150w to get a certain SPL at 45Hz, then in the upper bass/low mids where there isn't any EQ being applied, you would really have only 15 watts to work with. Do the math yourself, I promise it works out!

Yes, it works out the same way the logic of Erasmus Montanus works out: A rock cannot fly, Mother cannot fly. Ergo: Mother is a rock.

Jon wrote:

Anyway, what do I know? I'm stupid.

I'm done. Won't say another word in this thread, I promise.

I'm crossing my fingers.

Oh, and John (Barker),

Very funny 😳

Sorry, Electrified. I don't buy your position on this at all. You have arrived at a conclusion as to what constitutes good sound, to you, and now you're mystified that the entire world isn't on board with you. That's something you'll never experience - listening preferences are simply too diverse.

You may also actually find reading and comprehending what your interlocutors are writing useful - rather than just setting up straw man arguments that serve your point-of-view.

Yes, BL5s measure well, if not, I wouldn't own a pair. But B&O have done absolutely nothing to explain how best to use them, and most owners of BL5s use them incorrectly, if the goal is to make their acoustic lenses "shine." And when the lenses are used correctly, through engaging side wall reflections, then the speakers do not measure according to the ideals used to evaluate speakers these days. That doesn't worry me at all - though I do know, from direct experience, that it did worry B&O in Struer.

But I find the manner in which you "argue" very unengaging, and think I'll tune out for now. 

Cheers.

There is a lot of black and white in this, and also a lot of grey.

When I am so adamant that I say that I prefer my 40-year-old B&O system to a new digital system, well, that's he grey speaking. But to get to that stage, there was a lot of black-and-white involved.

To restore that 40 year-old system, there was a lot of methodical and measureable research involved. That research had nothing to do with - "let's try this part, and see how it sounds". No, that would not have satisfied me. I wanted the most accurate reproduction of sound that that EXISTING 40 year-old design would give me. Why, because I believe that B&O's 40 year-old design was the best design of its time, a design that has proven itself to hold up over time.

So, I set up a representative power supply on a breadboard, with lots of sockets, all connected to my most trustworthy measuring equipment - my fully restored Tektronix 2465B (also all analog) and started inserting many different types of capacitors to determine their effect on the quality of the power-rail signal. I can assure you all that there is a measurable black-and-white difference between one or other capacitor of equal values.

At the end of this black-and-white test, my choice of capacitor for the power-rail path was quite clear. There is no competition for the Nichicon HE and Panasonic FM, with the Panasonic EB a close second.

And those are the power-rail capacitors I use in all my restorations. That was an easy black-and-white decision.

In spite of that, I still see "garbage" capacitors being used in many high-end equipment today, which gives me the impression that their designers either don't care, or their recommendations were shot down by the bean-counters. Which further reduces what little respect I may have had for those companies.

Choosing an audio-signal path capacitor is much more difficult - it's very much a grey, subjective area. Here, I rely very much on recommendations and on my own grey, subjective listening tests. And, believe it or not, I'm not fully convinced that boutique audio capacitors really, really make a difference! But again, my ears are over 50 years old, and influenced by over 20 years of jet-engine noise, so maybe there is a difference which I can't hear.

However, once again, I am absolutely disgusted when I open up a multi-thousand pound machine and I see a no-name Chinese capacitor of a single series in every capacitor position (both power and audio-signal).

It is as if the company is blurting out to the customer without shame - "You see Mr Customer, we know you don't know sh-t - we use garbage, and we are still able to con you into buying our product." And that attitude is more prevalent with today's digital age, than ever before in the history of sound equipment.

And, BTW, I'm not impressed when I see plain-Jane Samwha capacitors all over B&O's new equipment. There's enough profit margin in each machine to do a lot, lot better, and get a more reliable and better sounding product to boot.

I'd like to see, just once, a manufacturer ad opening up the cover to full and unrestricted criticism, and inviting the customer to ask questions, and actually responding honestly.

Now that would be a company I could respect, and I'd bet the sales figures would reflect that respect as well.

So, grey, and black-and-white - they both have a place. At the end of the day, what really counts is what the manufacturer chooses to do with the information he has acquired thorough painstaking research, if he cared enough to bother to do any research at all.

Menahem

soundproof wrote:

Sorry, Electrified. I don't buy your position on this at all. You have arrived at a conclusion as to what constitutes good sound, to you, and now you're mystified that the entire world isn't on board with you. That's something you'll never experience - listening preferences are simply too diverse.

So, no measurements or objective facts it is then. Sure, let's all follow the lowest common denominator, simply because we can't agree. Excellent way of dealing with things.

soundproof wrote:

You may also actually find reading and comprehending what your interlocutors are writing useful - rather than just setting up straw man arguments that serve your point-of-view.

You may need to reread my posts and try to comprehend what is actually said, instead of relying on audiophilic myths.

soundproof wrote:

Yes, BL5s measure well, if not, I wouldn't own a pair. But B&O have done absolutely nothing to explain how best to use them, and most owners of BL5s use them incorrectly, if the goal is to make their acoustic lenses "shine."

What the hell bearing has whether or not B&O has explained to you how to set up your speakers to do with whether or not they're good speakers, has loads of headroom, and are very, very accurate? They're more forgiving than most speakers when it comes to placement, but they are speakers, so a little effort is needed, of course. But again, I can't see why that should have any bearing on anything we have discussed so far, to be honest.

soundproof wrote:

And when the lenses are used correctly, through engaging side wall reflections, then the speakers do not measure according to the ideals used to evaluate speakers these days. That doesn't worry me at all - though I do know, from direct experience, that it did worry B&O in Struer.

As it rightfully should. The problem with giving hard advice on the placement of speakers is that every room is different. That doesn't mean, naturally, that it doesn't matter, but that there is no one solution for everyone.

soundproof wrote:

But I find the manner in which you "argue" very unengaging, and think I'll tune out for now. 

My "manner" in which I argue, where I cut up the posts is a very traditional way of arguing. It's one of the best ways  to check premises and validity of arguments, and that is the reason I use it. If it were all about what I like and not liked, then you'd have a point. Since that is not the case, I will continue to cut up people's posts to counter the strawmen, Ad Hominems, appeals to popularity and other logical fallacies, the myths, the ignorance,  and what else we have, thank you very much.

Very good post, Menahem 🙂

I just wanted to add, that some manufacturers are quite receptive to constructive criticism of their products.

I have had an excellent relationship with Asus, being one of the first Asus dealers in Israel, and in those early years, we had direct aceess to the Asus Engineering personnel at Taiwan HQ. The relationship has stayed very healthy over the years.

About a year ago, Asus released a motherboard with the highest-quality Panasonic capacitors to-date. I was very surprised to see that, because, while I was accustomed to seeing relatively high-quality components on their boards, that was the first time I'd seen a "digital" company take the step of quality without cost considerations.

I was suitably impressed to the degree that I fired off a complimentary email to the head engineer in Taiwan, complimenting him on his choice.

He wrote back to me, stating that it was nice to hear when customers appreciate their efforts, especially when most customers wouldn't even know enough to notice the difference.

Now, I know that most manufacturers would not appreciate customer "interference" in their choice of components, and that's their problem. But here was a very positive example of the manufacturer "sensing" what would be good for the customer, is also good for them.

Menahem

That ASUS-story reminds me of Lenovo and their Thinkpad developers. They asked us users on their blog if we would be interested in a Thinkpad netbook.  Of course, quite a few of us were, but we were all adament that it should have a matt screen, not compromising on the keyboard, have enough connections and a trackpoint (and various other things such as being reasonably fast etc.). They listened and now we have the Thinkpad X100e:

Doctor wrote:

It could be that there are some B&O fans at Hi-Fi World! A certain Mr T. Jarman writes for them as does one of our own - Mr Adam Smith. I am still waiting for the write up of the 8000 system - I think they are waiting until they all have one before extolling its virtues and putting the price up! I also await the 4400 article - I am happy to lend them a 4401! 😂

You've hit the nail on the head, Peter - editor David Price has vetoed it from the magazine until he has one but as Tim and I both have 8000 systems, we're finding this very frustrating! What's especially amusing is that I pointed David in the direction of the 8000 system that I now own but when he had done nothing after a week, I grabbed it myself!

Also, following an earlier comment about Linn and Naim, I have the BM8000 which I love, but my main amplifier is a Naim Supernait, which I also love, so what does that say about me? On second, thoughts, perhaps I don't want to know....😳