0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 20727 times.
Well, I guess we'll just have to accept the fact that this thread has gone off track. But I think it's still been useful. It's certainly motivated me to make another trip up to Boston to hear the HT3's with lots of $$$$ driving them. My main problem with mega buck amps vs mega buck speakers is that I don't know quite what the theory is behind some of the super expensive amps, whereas it's pretty obvious why an HT4 costs more than an HT3 which costs more than an HT2...................... Deeper bass costs money. There's no real short cut there. And copper shorting rings cost more than no shorting rings, and you can document that distortion goes down with the copper. And two drivers cost more than one, and two give you more sensitivity. And sloped cabinets, and bigger cabinets, cost more. But when it comes to amps, and wires, and interconnects---I see the higher price tags, but I don't always see the science or common sense. Actually, I usually don't see it. So that's why I'm not willing to accept any claims about amps until I can verify them. Well, that's true of speakers too. Uh--what was the question?
also, i agree w/dennis murphy - i would suspect that the ht4's w/a modestly priced amp would outperform the ht3's w/ an expensive amp (especially in this case, as the ht4 seems to be much easier to drive than the ht3) - i'd inwest the additional money on the speakers instead of on the amp...doug s.
i would suspect that the ht4's w/a modestly priced amp would outperform the ht3's w/ an expensive amp
be approached by what you pay for the front end. From that point of view, it is quite unnecessary to spend $15,000 on an amplifier, when that amount of money can get you at least within a shake or two of the best performing speakers to be had - and certainly the best speakers you could hope to appreciate to the fullest in a potentially compromised listening environment.
Quote from: zybar on 27 May 2009, 11:22 pmAgain, I am not trying to impose my value system or viewpoint on anybody, I am simply asking that all viewpoints be considered and not make this into a black and white discussion.Has anyone accused you of trying to impose your values? I don't think you ever have, I don't think I have a reason to think so. I always give consideration to your viewpoint, as you are clearly an experienced listener with a lot of exposure to different stuff. And I hope I don't come across as a black and white sort of guy.
Again, I am not trying to impose my value system or viewpoint on anybody, I am simply asking that all viewpoints be considered and not make this into a black and white discussion.
Quote from: BrianM on 28 May 2009, 12:34 ambe approached by what you pay for the front end. From that point of view, it is quite unnecessary to spend $15,000 on an amplifier, when that amount of money can get you at least within a shake or two of the best performing speakers to be had - and certainly the best speakers you could hope to appreciate to the fullest in a potentially compromised listening environment.$15K will easily get you a pair of Geddes Summas and 3 subs, or a Linkwitz Orion++ system.End of story.
HT2...................... Deeper bass costs money. There's no real short cut there. And copper shorting rings cost more than no shorting rings, and you can document that distortion goes down with the copper.
Quote from: BrianM on 28 May 2009, 12:34 amQuote from: zybar on 27 May 2009, 11:22 pmAgain, I am not trying to impose my value system or viewpoint on anybody, I am simply asking that all viewpoints be considered and not make this into a black and white discussion.Has anyone accused you of trying to impose your values? I don't think you ever have, I don't think I have a reason to think so. I always give consideration to your viewpoint, as you are clearly an experienced listener with a lot of exposure to different stuff. And I hope I don't come across as a black and white sort of guy.I feel that some things are quite black and white. There is plenty of research showing where we need to be when designing speakers. Too many designers seem to ignore that research.
I haven't heard the Summas yet, but I would take the Salk HT3's over the Orion's any day.
Quote from: zybar on 28 May 2009, 12:41 pmI haven't heard the Summas yet, but I would take the Salk HT3's over the Orion's any day. Orions or Orion+ or ++?The original Orions are superior to the HT3s, but they are limited in terms of maximum SPL. The Orion+ is fully dipole, and the ++ goes far towards eliminating the output limits.Or are you opposed to the Orions because they don't use tweako electronics?
Quote from: doug s. on 28 May 2009, 03:35 ami would suspect that the ht4's w/a modestly priced amp would outperform the ht3's w/ an expensive ampI don't want to be a bore, but this is one more example of the unspoken assumption that more expensive equals better! I'm not sure it's even intentional, I just think people reflexively think in these terms about audio (I'm sure I could catch myself doing the same thing at some point). Can we replace the terms 'modestly priced' and 'expensive' with 'average' and 'excellent'?
