FlexibleAudio
Member
I obviously chose the Raidhos over the Q5's and then bought the Soulutions. I am well aware of your views on Vitus curing all ills. They do make good stuff.
Magico S5 mk2
- Thread starter vagabundo
- Start date
I obviously chose the Raidhos over the Q5's and then bought the Soulutions. I am well aware of your views on Vitus curing all ills. They do make good stuff.
Mmm no they're not a cure all. But there is synergy going on with Vitus/Magico. Soulution gear is cool as well, but I don't like the price of entry.
The S7s and S5II's are running with the Vitus Signature gear mentioned above in our Manhattan studio....anyone ever in town drop by for a listen.
Eggmeister
New member
Pm sent.
bzr
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2014
- Messages
- 2,033
Jim Smith
Member
IMO - Using those amps in a bi-amplified system, even if gain-matched, may produce an interesting sound, but not a sound that is cohesive from a musical standpoint. - IMO
FlexibleAudio
Member
Hey Jim, you worried about time alignment or something else? If so what about DSP to handle that and gain instead of Nelson's analog rig just for gain. Also give the remarkable rise time of both amplifiers, if time is your concern, they may surprise you as match. I would certainly like to hear them before making a blanket statement. If something other than time is your concern, do you mind elaborating?
Odyssey
Member
I own both the soulution 501 mono's and the 711 stereo amp presently. They are both equally capable of driving inefficient speakers with aplomb.
FlexibleAudio
Member
Does not sound to me like you are asking a question, more like you are answering one. I sent you to study Toole work, which you, apparently, already know and dismissed (even though he never “yacked” about the things you claim he does - see post #366). So if you dismiss Toole work, who am I to even try. Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I will pass.
Most of us are familiar with the work of Toole and Geddes. We're also aware of the fact that it's misinterpreted often in attempts to make it mean things never intended. Basically all that was shown is that people tend to prefer properly designed speakers over poorly designed ones. Even power response is proper design, that's all that was shown a preference for.
Well I wouldn't describe the Q5's as inefficient..
Yeah, though I was thinking biatch! :afraid:
FlexibleAudio
Member
Addressing my bolds in order:
First Bold
I asked you to explain your logic....twice. To quote you: "apparently you are not reading my posts."
Second Bold
If you your point is he doesn't yack, point taken. If you are claiming that he doesn't argue a correlation between linear FR and positive results in blind testing, "apparently you are not listening to his posts."
Third Bold
You are the one whom said better testing results imply a better speaker. It seams reasonable for one to conclude that you would be the one to respond to a challenge to that statement, unless of course "you are not reading your own posts."
The Sandman
Member
This thread would be a lot more pleasant if certain members continued their squabble privately.
Precisely, and that is why in a blind test, people will most likely prefer the S5 to the Vandersteen. As a speaker designer you surely understand that it is not so simple to achieve a smooth even power response. Something that in practice will be just about impossible to do in a time coherent design. The price these designs make in order to achieve time coherency is huge. And BTW, I do know what an impedance trap circuit looks like, and that is what you see abundantly in the enormous Thiel XO picture I posted (I even posted the schematic of the "simple" 17 (!!) parts 2-way CS 1.2 just to give an example how complex these XOs are). The concept of time coherency is indeed noble, but in practicality very taxing in overall performance. This is my interpretation of the facts, and how I hear these speakers.
FlexibleAudio
Member
Respectfully, LVB I don't understand why you continue to make such claims and are unwilling to provide any logical explanation supporting your supposition. I would only presume you are either seriously not reading the posts made to you or you are just yanking peoples chains for sport. Please allow me to make my point on last time and I will try to do so as simply as possible to facilitate things.
Where I agree
Clearly Toole has shown a positive correlation coefficient between blind testing and measurements. One of those measurements is FR.
Where I disagree
However, I have never seen any credible empirical evidence related to blind testing, or other wise, making a definitive determination that optimization of FR is superior to time response. I have also never seen such evidence confirm that the correlation coefficient between positive blind test results and FR remains positive beyond a base level acceptable to the human ear. I, in fact, have questioned whether the correlation coefficient turns negative if FR is taken to an extreme. The O'tool work in no way shape or form draws such conclusions and doing so rings hallow. You are the only one I recall making such a claim so conclusively and yet you will not address the question at hand yet you keep repeating your belief. Why not do a fellow Shark a solid and help us get as smart as you.