You look much taller in this picture that you looked the day I met you at that SMAC AK Swap meet.
Open discussion: our biases!
- Thread starter JohnVF
- Start date
You look much taller in this picture that you looked the day I met you at that SMAC AK Swap meet.
Hey now, we can’t all be giraffes. Or Llamas.
My biases:
- Amplifiers (particular "audiophile" grade or boutique level products) that don't employ a basic dual-mono physical layout and/or topology. If you are designing a stereo amplifier and don't treat both channels equally, how can I take your amplifier seriously? I like/respect Rogue gear, but have always been irritated with the Atlas/Magnum layout. Why are the tubes laid out with balance/symmetry yet the output transformers are way back in one corner? I remember reading a review of one (damned if I can find it now) in which the writer noted a higher level of noise/ripple on one channel than the other, and noted it was the channel that was closer to the P/S side of the amp and had longer signal paths under the chassis. It wouldn't have been hard to separate out the channels, put the P/S in the middle, and isolate accordingly. Hell, even Dynaco got that part right with the ST-70 back in prehistoric times.
- I agree with John on Schiit.
- Digital servers/streaming stuff: it's just too damn complicated. I'm a smart guy (my mom says so) and I see the various implementations and various gear associated with it CONSTANTLY changing - it's faster than Rega and Pro-Ject can come out with new versions of the same turntables they've been making for the past 25 years. I have no interest and find myself taking less seriously any opinions about down-stream gear that rely solely on these digital sources (local friends excepted, of course).
I'm sure I'll think of more.
- Amplifiers (particular "audiophile" grade or boutique level products) that don't employ a basic dual-mono physical layout and/or topology. If you are designing a stereo amplifier and don't treat both channels equally, how can I take your amplifier seriously? I like/respect Rogue gear, but have always been irritated with the Atlas/Magnum layout. Why are the tubes laid out with balance/symmetry yet the output transformers are way back in one corner? I remember reading a review of one (damned if I can find it now) in which the writer noted a higher level of noise/ripple on one channel than the other, and noted it was the channel that was closer to the P/S side of the amp and had longer signal paths under the chassis. It wouldn't have been hard to separate out the channels, put the P/S in the middle, and isolate accordingly. Hell, even Dynaco got that part right with the ST-70 back in prehistoric times.
- I agree with John on Schiit.
- Digital servers/streaming stuff: it's just too damn complicated. I'm a smart guy (my mom says so) and I see the various implementations and various gear associated with it CONSTANTLY changing - it's faster than Rega and Pro-Ject can come out with new versions of the same turntables they've been making for the past 25 years. I have no interest and find myself taking less seriously any opinions about down-stream gear that rely solely on these digital sources (local friends excepted, of course).
I'm sure I'll think of more.
I would say "bite me" but you did turn me onto the Filmore 13 so I owe you one.
I put that in there for you, you know.
Another one: metal-dome tweeters
I've heard so very, very many speakers with metal tweeters that drove me from the room that I have lumped most of them together, whether they are $99 or $99k. A few audio shows ago (I think it was RMAF three years ago) I used "metal dome tweeters in this room?" as a way to concentrate time spent listening to other systems. I think the next show (AXPONA the following spring) is when I "decided" (concluded?) that I liked most planar-magnetic tweeters the best, and most soft-dome tweeters next best, and from then on have dismissed most speakers with metal dome tweeters. And I have a good bit of cognitive dissonance to rationalize when it comes to wonderfully-implemented examples, Harbeth comes to mind.
And horns:
Most Klipsch speakers have sounded, to my ears, like an iPod playing through an orange traffic cone, so I've never given them (or similar speakers) much opportunity; my eyes said I wouldn't like it, so my ears didn't. I have similar difficulties with, again, wonderfully-implemented "horn" speakers. The absolute best thing I heard at AXPONA last year was a very unusual horn system. It was breathtaking, and my eyes said I would hate it.
I've heard so very, very many speakers with metal tweeters that drove me from the room that I have lumped most of them together, whether they are $99 or $99k. A few audio shows ago (I think it was RMAF three years ago) I used "metal dome tweeters in this room?" as a way to concentrate time spent listening to other systems. I think the next show (AXPONA the following spring) is when I "decided" (concluded?) that I liked most planar-magnetic tweeters the best, and most soft-dome tweeters next best, and from then on have dismissed most speakers with metal dome tweeters. And I have a good bit of cognitive dissonance to rationalize when it comes to wonderfully-implemented examples, Harbeth comes to mind.
And horns:
Most Klipsch speakers have sounded, to my ears, like an iPod playing through an orange traffic cone, so I've never given them (or similar speakers) much opportunity; my eyes said I wouldn't like it, so my ears didn't. I have similar difficulties with, again, wonderfully-implemented "horn" speakers. The absolute best thing I heard at AXPONA last year was a very unusual horn system. It was breathtaking, and my eyes said I would hate it.
How about that Dalai guy?
FWIW:
I earned my (anti) Klipsch bias, having lived with these for a decade.
Rcornieoly by Mark Hardy, on FlickrThe fact that a guy makes money upgrading these by putting titanium tweeters in 'em just makes my teeth clench.
I was anti metal dome tweeters, it then ended up with metal domes in my Harbeths, and they sound nothing like what the old ones sounded like to me, especially JBL titanium ones. Had I not been able to audition the speakers in person, I would probably not have considered them because of the domes.
A lot of my biases come from my background in vintage, when so many issues from the past have long been solved in present gear.
I came here to say this. Well played.I like to run my biases around 25mA...
Try1256
Very Special Member
My beryllium tweeter and mid drivers sound pretty good.
I've discovered the hard way that sometimes you can end up with *really* weird magnetic fields this way that can cause noise in the system - not with all amplifiers, certainly, but I have seen it (may have been orientation & transformer design). But if you don't have that particular problem, then I certainly agree a symmetrical layout is theoretically best.
-D
My bias tends to be heading back towards vintage gear after years of frustration with repairs and constant breakdowns. I think it has to do with my current anti technology bias overall and the desire to remove as much of it from my life as i can. I am sick of smart phones that stop working for no reason after a couple of years, sick of constant intrusions and notifications and the control these devices seem to have over our lives. Everyone (including myself) seems unable to escape the instant gratification that these devices bring. The stuff I really like now is 60s and early 70s gear that has that Madmen feel to it. A couple of years ago I bought a brilliant amplifier in the Nait 5i2. Great build quality, amazing sound but all I could think about was that it would look more appropriate on a server rack then on the cabinet in my mancave. I know this bias is not based on anything quality related, although I do also love the quality of the old gear, but rather a nostalgia for another time in the past. Maybe I have been watching too much "Black Mirror" but I am really growing to dislike technology even after 20 years of working in the tech industry myself.
Interesting in that I hadn't much though about things I'm bias -towards-. And it's towards similar things, for similar reasons. I like things that look old and that don't have a lot of higher technology inside making them work. My only exception to that has been my BlueSound server stuff, but even that was because I didn't want a computer anywhere near my system as I spend all day looking at one..but I like having all that music right there with me. So I have an older iPad dedicated now to just controlling the BlueSound stuff. My main system is back to just records and CDs, though. The BlueSound gear is in the bedroom and, ironically, my vintage system made of Fisher tube gear and Spendor BC-1s. But that system also has my Thorens TD-124, so can be low tech as well.
I understand your understanding of the definition of bias, but I'm still biased.
I am biased against Klipsch speakers based on the brief ownership of one lowly model. In retrospect it was probably as much to do with the system and the room; but there it is.
That doesn't stop me from having a fascination with La Scalas, or Belles, or Khorns. Just can't explain it.
That doesn't stop me from having a fascination with La Scalas, or Belles, or Khorns. Just can't explain it.
ICTWoody
No longer a junior member
My bias' include:
• Class D amplification: I have owned a lot of them. From inexpensive chip stuff to nice stuff like NuPrime. It's not that they sound BAD. It's that I find them dry, clinical and uninteresting to listen to. They are like a smart friend with no personality.
• JohnVF and Redboy: I'm totally bias to want to buy and try anything that John and Nate thinks is good. It's their fault I've owned Kef LS50's, Elac UB5's, I want Leben gear and I have multiple step-up transformers and singled-ended tube mono blocks.
• Vintage gear as the best value: I too think tech has come a long way and I think they BEST VALUES are represented by modern gear, not vintage pieces that all need restored. Although there are vintage speakers and components I do like. Altec in particular.
• Subwoofers: I have subs, I've used subs. I still hate subs. I just don't think that subs are a replacement for a really full range speaker. I'm mostly too lazy to really spend the time to get them integrated to the level where they are doing their job without me noticing them.
• Really REALLY expensive photo cartridges: I own multiple carts from Denon, Dynavector and others... my most expensive being around a grand new. But I just can't believe you can do so much to a cartridge that they should be able to command $5k, $8k, $10K plus... that's fucking NUTS! For a cartridge?!?!
• Class D amplification: I have owned a lot of them. From inexpensive chip stuff to nice stuff like NuPrime. It's not that they sound BAD. It's that I find them dry, clinical and uninteresting to listen to. They are like a smart friend with no personality.
• JohnVF and Redboy: I'm totally bias to want to buy and try anything that John and Nate thinks is good. It's their fault I've owned Kef LS50's, Elac UB5's, I want Leben gear and I have multiple step-up transformers and singled-ended tube mono blocks.
• Vintage gear as the best value: I too think tech has come a long way and I think they BEST VALUES are represented by modern gear, not vintage pieces that all need restored. Although there are vintage speakers and components I do like. Altec in particular.
• Subwoofers: I have subs, I've used subs. I still hate subs. I just don't think that subs are a replacement for a really full range speaker. I'm mostly too lazy to really spend the time to get them integrated to the level where they are doing their job without me noticing them.
• Really REALLY expensive photo cartridges: I own multiple carts from Denon, Dynavector and others... my most expensive being around a grand new. But I just can't believe you can do so much to a cartridge that they should be able to command $5k, $8k, $10K plus... that's fucking NUTS! For a cartridge?!?!
Last edited:
Mortsnets
Junior Member
I am biased against:
computer audio
headphones
class d
el34s
gear that is supposed to be good for engineering rather than listening based reasons
gear that is immediately impressive
gear that is too good looking or has many features (must be lifestyle)
high efficiency and single driver speakers
I am biased for:
two way speakers
el84s
modified
tinned copper
small companies
computer audio
headphones
class d
el34s
gear that is supposed to be good for engineering rather than listening based reasons
gear that is immediately impressive
gear that is too good looking or has many features (must be lifestyle)
high efficiency and single driver speakers
I am biased for:
two way speakers
el84s
modified
tinned copper
small companies
Just getting into this, but I am biased against EL84s. Vintage SS gear. Multi driver speakers. Overly complex crossovers. Large speakers. Having the internet connected to my audio. Computer audio of any kind. MC cartridges that cost less thena$3000. Gear made in communist dictatorships. Black audio boxes. Black ash speakers.
Similar threads
