The Best System I’ve Ever Heard in a Studio (or perhaps anywhere!)

returnstackerror -- Fri, 04/08/2011 - 15:49

Re Jim Hannon's blog
 
http://www.avguide.com/blog/the-best-system-i-ve-ever-heard-studio-or-perhaps-anywhere
 
So... this is right up there in terms of systems he has heard yet according to all the setup rules (relative to the posted photos), the speakers are tucked into the corners (bad bad bad)... and there is lots of mastering equipments racks between the listener and the speakers (bad bad bad).
 
And potentially the room size is too small .
 
So Jim is either on drugs or all the setup rules we took as gospel are crap?
 
Cant have it  both ways
 
Peter

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/08/2011 - 15:59

 Can you post the link to what you are talking about?  I would love to see "the best system" as I too have heard that term too often and would love to share your cynicism.
thanks

trponhunter -- Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:07

I would say Many of the setup gospel rules (rule of thirds, for example) are not particularly good, at best. So, I can definitely believe that system sounding good- especially with a guy like Bob Houdas doing the setup.

trponhunter -- Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:08

I would say Many of the setup gospel rules (rule of thirds, for example) are not particularly good, at best. So, I can definitely believe that system sounding good- especially with a guy like Bob Houdas doing the setup.

Priaptor -- Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:26

Sounding "good" versus "the best" are quite different beasts. I am sure the setup is "good" but from the "the best" that system is capable of given the setup in the picture, I highly doubt.

The reason, why this magazine and so many of its writers are losing credibility to many of us is that the term "best" is tossed around with no thought to its meaning.

I personally use a simple beginning to any setup. Name your choice, rule of thirds, Wilson (in my humble opinion, BS voicing) voicing rules, Cardas rules, etc. etc. By the way, I have owned WATT/Puppies and had X1's the latter set up by a "Wilson Representative". The first thing I did was move the X1's after the Wilson guy told me the optimal location. I think the Wilson rule works best when starting from the rear and or side walls and repeating "bullshit" over and over again, until those in the "optimal" listening location hear the clarity of the word "bullshit" with the utmost intimacy and 3 dimensionality.

Having owned many different speakers and systems, I always find the optimal location varies from one of these rules, BUT, no matter what I do, I have never found a solution where being up against a rear wall as in this picture is the best solution. NEVER. So good, maybe, the BEST, I take with a huge grain of salt.

Just sayin.

Ded Frag -- Wed, 04/20/2011 - 18:24

Priaptor - Sat, 04/09/2011 - 23:26
Having owned many different speakers and systems, I always find the optimal location varies from one of these rules, BUT, no matter what I do, I have never found a solution where being up against a rear wall as in this picture is the best solution. NEVER. So good, maybe, the BEST, I take with a huge grain of salt.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
That's no ordinary rear wall ! Have any of the spaces you've found to provide less than best/perfect sound with speakers against the rear wall had installed ceiling bass traps like that studio? We may also consider the probability , given the sophistication of the driving electronics, cross overs etc, that some form of bass region compensation has been built in for close to rear wall location. ( I dare not use the word 'equalization', like 'balance' and 'tone controls' audiophool purists are inclined to have conniptions at the mere mention of such vulgarities)

Priaptor -- Wed, 04/20/2011 - 19:04

OK, you MUST be right, this is may the BEST system anywhere.

This review and blog makes a mockery of the term BEST. Please.

Ded Frag -- Wed, 04/20/2011 - 19:30

Priaptor -- Thu, 04/21/2011 - 08:04
OK, you MUST be right, this is may the BEST system anywhere.
This review and blog makes a mockery of the term BEST. Please.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if I wander off topic here but I feel like letting off a bit of steam.
Why 'MUST'? The only standards, from my perspective, that can ever approach 'best' are those invented some decades ago by Harry Pearson's phrase "Absolute Sound" and Peter Walker's "The closest approach to the original sound" . This last is somewhat self evident. "Absolute Sound" represents the most accurate reproduction of the known sound of acoustic instruments played in a real acoustic. Electronically produced music can't be used as a standard gauge in judging what's 'best' as only the recording engineer/musician(?) know what the original tape/master is supposed to sound like.
Anyhow, away from the studio what really matters is any particular listener being able to achieve the most musical satisfaction and enjoyment in their own environment. If that's a thoroughly inaccurate mush of 300B honey coated unreality with monstrous room induced standing waves, good luck to them. Recording engineers don't have that privilege being forced to confront accurately stuff they may even hate while mastering it , in fact some I've spoken to detest a lot of what they're asked to commit to digits/tape but compensate by crying all the way to the bank.

Priaptor -- Wed, 04/20/2011 - 19:37

Hey, I don't have an issue with what you are saying. In fact, I built a sound room, acoustically treated it because it was relatively small and I got fantastic sound and yes, I treated my ceilings and designed the room with Jeff Rowland's help, angling it properly using poured concrete and rebar as a start.

Where I have a problem is that everything is "THE BEST". It is a term that mitigates this magazine and site, whether it be HP or JV or any other writer who uses the term. At least HP, doesn't throw the term "THE BEST" around on a monthly basis like all others.

Ded Frag -- Thu, 04/21/2011 - 20:02

"The best" has always been, and will always be, thrown around by audio reviewers with such abandon as to have become meaningless some decades ago. The only protection we have is to listen with our own ears and decide what's best for us. And that, I hate to say, can sometimes be anything but accurate. Take for instance the joy given middle aged males by moving coils with tilted upper frequencies that just happen to compensate for diminished hearing in those regions, a condition common with said middle aged males. This class of listeners also sometimes happens to include reviewers. Published clinical hearing test results for reviewers won't appear in audio magazines any time soon though.

Priaptor -- Thu, 04/21/2011 - 20:08

Again, don't disagree with anything you say.

"The Best" is also a taste issue.

returnstackerror -- Sat, 04/09/2011 - 13:59

@trponhunter -- Sat, 04/09/2011 - 10:08

"I would say Many of the setup gospel rules (rule of thirds, for example) are not particularly good, at best. So, I can definitely believe that system sounding good- especially with a guy like Bob Houdas doing the setup"

The two examples I give arent rules based... they are acoustical facts.

Excessive bass reinforcement due to corner placement is FACT. Sure some speakers benefit from it (and some are in fact designed for corner placement) but Focal Grand Utopia EM loudspeakers would in my opinion not be in that category.

In fact if you go to Focals web site, at the link http://www.focal.com/en/home-audio-loudspeakers/advices-stereo-home-thea..., Focal specfically state "Avoid placing the speakers too close to the room’s corners or walls. This will induce some unwanted room resonance and artificially increase bass response."

Sticking a large stack of mastering equipment directly in the sound stage between the listener and the speakers is again not a subjective question (like rule of thirds/cardas etc)... its a disruptive setup... FACT

While Bob Houdas might know his "stuff", the room and the setup are for mastering and so my complaint is not against him.... its his clients mastering room and they are free to master with a setup that best suits their mastering vision.

But as I say, the two FACTUAL issues I see with the room means that it is highly unlikely that it would prove a satisfactory audiophile grade listening room... let alone "the best"

trponhunter -- Sat, 04/09/2011 - 18:15

The tweeters appear to be about 30" or so from the side walls to me- not jammed in the corner. Also, the rear wall behind the speakers appears to be acoustically absorptive, which helps with tight image focussing. Regarding the excessive bass balance that occurs when a freestanding speaker is placed to close to th wall behind them or to the side of them, there are "parametric filters" ( equalization) to correct this. This system is set up for accuracy and faithfulness to the original event, not a particular type of "audiophile" sound. I would give the writer the benefit of the doubt that it sounds great. It most likely does not sound like a lot of audiophile's systems, because most of those systems are not eq'd for linear frequency response, but it probally sounds closer to the actual live event that was recorded.

Jim Hannon -- Sun, 04/10/2011 - 23:34

It would be easy to get defensive, and I'll try to avoid getting into a "contest." I will say that I've never heard the Focal Grand Utopia EMs sound better.

As I admitted, I was highly skeptical that this system would sound good, let alone great.

I reported on what I heard. I am not saying it is the "best" system in the world, but it is certainly the best I have heard in any studio (and may well be the best I have heard). I worked in the pro audio business for several years, and have heard many studio systems. This is clearly at the top of those I have heard. Could there be a studio system in some far corner of the globe that's better? Sure.

Since posting the blog, I've had calls from other high-end audio manufacturers and reviewers who have heard the system and agree with my assessment.

Bob Hodas -- Mon, 04/11/2011 - 22:55

 I typically do not comment on forums but I feel that some response is due in this instance. This will be my only response to this forum and it primarily addresses a notion that I believe is pervasive in the audiophile forum community. Please bear in mind the opinion expressed is based on the fact that I have listened to and measured an extremely wide variety of audio systems in at least a thousand rooms.
So here we go. For the life of me I cannot understand how someone can look at a photograph and make a determination of what a room sounds like. Especially when the photograph is obviously a distortion due to a 17mm lens trying to capture an entire front wall for a magazine cover. The room in question contains not only a variety of wall angles but a variety of acoustic treatments (diffusion, absorption, and bas traps). By viewing  the photograph, there is no indication of where these treatments are placed and it is impossible to determine the wall angles. Can anyone tell me how deep the front corners of the room actually are and what may be behind the fabric? And what style membrane absorbers are being used and where are they located? This room is being ridiculed by people who have only seen a photo of the room and never even listened in it. Isn't this an audio forum? In the many years I've been tuning rooms I have found that preconceptions and rigid believe systems  can stop one from exploring solutions that can lead to extraordinary results.
While I agree that having obstructions between the listener and the speakers can be a serious negative element, once again, a photograph does not show how careful placement and proper angles can minimize or eliminate first order reflections from the work surface. And building desks without closed in fronts and sides can let bass frequencies flow through fairly freely. A studio is not a perfect listening environment but can be exceptional enough to create the fabulous recordings that the audiophile industry praises so highly, such as the many Reference Recording's discs that have been mastered in this room.
Please listen with your ears and not your eyes.

Priaptor -- Tue, 04/12/2011 - 10:28

Interesting that you would post and say "this will be my only response to this forum".

Well my response to you is that your are wrong.

Ded Frag -- Wed, 04/20/2011 - 18:30

Thanks Bob for a rare and welcome breath of sanity into the weird world of audiophool irrationally opinionated expertise.

returnstackerror -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 19:54

This room is being ridiculed by people who have only seen a photo of the room and never even listened in in"

I (as the OP) never ridculed the room.... I either stated that Jim was on drugs OR all the setup rules we took as gospel are crap?

So if Jim isnt on drugs and the room does sound fantastic then the design of the room treatments is potentially different from the standard ones (ie the usual setup rules).

My term "setup rules" covers more than just the speaker /room relationship and the listener/speaker relationship but also the treatment layout.

Now I must admit I didnt consider the "distortion" of the photo lens would make equipment postions look radically different then what they are in reality..but as no measurements were given for this (ie how far X was from Y) or in fact any diagram showing the treatment details, I could only comment on what I perceived.

But again, I never questioned the room nor designer, just whether there was something going that was out of the ordinary.

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 19:55

I think it is pretty clear, no matter how wide the angle lens used, that the speakers are as close to the rear wall as possible.

My biggest issue is how this magazine and those who write for it, use the term "best" so freely. How many bests are there? The use of "best" so frequently mitigates the validity of those reviewing.

trponhunter -- Sun, 04/17/2011 - 17:45

I find it amazing that so many audiophiles can critique a professional installation so quickly and definitively, with no professional training themselves. Their only qualifications are that they own a stereo system and listen to it. Many of them have very little or no technical knowledge, and certainly have never attended recording sessions, or visited a mastering lab or even measured the frequency response of their systems, or would even know how to measure it and have any idea of what it should look like ( it shouldn't be flat). Bob Houdas has real experience and sophisticated test equipment- in addition to all the listening hours that audiophiles have. My money is on Bob in this dog fight. Hobbyists arguing with trained professionals seems kind of silly, to me. If everyone would stop criticizing and rather would ask questions, it would make more sense, and we would all learn something new.
And I think saying it is the best professional installation he's ever heard is fully justifiable, it does not fall into the category of the best cd player of the month club that it is being compared to.

Priaptor -- Sun, 04/17/2011 - 19:53

What is it you don't get?

In today's world everyone is a "professional" photographer or recording artist. Great, they have more experience with both.

The issue I have is that everything on these pages is "THE BEST" and if you have the ability to read, which I as a "professional reader" do have the ability, you will see: "The Best System I’ve Ever Heard in a Studio (or perhaps anywhere!)" with the parenthesis "or perhaps anywhere". These are ludicrous comments as next month the same dumb comments of "the best" will again populate this blog and magazine. Personally, I find it pitiful not helpful.

trponhunter -- Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:18

Agreed- "the best "is tossed around too loosely , but this is specific enough that it has some meaning. Even if it didn't, in my opinion, knowing that Bob has an excellent reputation, this sytem more than likely sounds great. If we all start to realize that there are legitimate professionals within the audio industry that have solutions to problems that home audiophile asren't aware of, then we can look and learn. Having information about the recording process is eye opening. I have been to mastering studios and to recording sites, and it has allowed me to understand and look at home audio differently than before I attended them. This system gives us a glimpse into that world- regardless of the reviewer's use ofthe term "the best". Although, I do agree, the term "the best", with all the disclaimers afterwards, gets a little old.

Priaptor -- Sun, 04/17/2011 - 20:26

That is my issue. When everything is described as "the best", as so often happens in the audiophile world, it loses meaning. I really enjoy my system, think it is great, but "the best", I would never be that bold.

I do understand why many endusers feel the need to validate their purchase by justifying their purchase with reviews using the term "the best" but I fail (other than money from advertisers) to understand why these reviewers are so willing to compromise their role by calling everything "the best".

One of the reasons I miss HP's old reviewing tactics.

returnstackerror -- Fri, 04/22/2011 - 14:39

again..... you missed the point.

I never critizied Bob and his room............ I asked the question, based on two observations I saw from the posted photos, whether some of the golden rules (which include room treatments) needed to be modified if this room indeed did sound so good.

The other point is, if we use the analogy of "amatuer" car builders... their results can be as good as the professionals. The advantage amatuers have is one of time.

While I am not a professional acoustical engineer, I have built from the ground up, several rooms. I just finished my last one after 2 years of part time work and experimentation and the room measure flat and sounds very very good. And the quality of craftsmenship is very high.

I am willing to share photo's/measurements with you In a PM.

So be careful when you sling an arrow that the guy on the other end of a forum is some idiot audiophile. In all fields of endeavour (hobbies or not) some amatuers can produce great products (cars/houses/listening rooms/etc) that rival professionals.

As I say, the one advantage amatuers have is time.

returnstackerror -- Fri, 04/15/2011 - 19:59

zead -- Thu, 04/21/2011 - 08:55

 Priaptor,
              you consistently destroy  every opportunity on these forums to have constructive conversaaqtion abourt interesting topics and observaqtions with your never=ending diatribe about best. its almost as if once you see the word best the reactionary baboon within you just goes off without any a thought for the context at hand. if you'd just pause and really read the article you'd see Jim's reference of the best he's heard. you'd also realize that digital processing is at play and thus a lot of audiophile rules (thirds, corner placement, etc) are circumvented by processing algorithms - of  course it begs me to ask have you ever heard a fully digitally compensated system? well, i have. and let me tell you - the space and its limitations almost become irrelevant. bass especially, becomes a revelation. I'm tempted to continue but then i'll do like jim and make this my only response.....because i've become convinced that your objective quotient approached zero a long time ago - being stuck at the point where you believe that past ownership of wilson speakers somehow qualified you as audiophile god. Me - i've decided to be audiophile-satan whenever you post your never-ending bullshit.........thaqnks jim for highligting me to this mastering process; i'll definitely check out their recordings

Priaptor -- Thu, 04/21/2011 - 09:27

Zead,

Where have you been. I miss your sycophantic polemics. Maybe they can hire a few more reviewers to say this and that are the best so that there are a few more rear ends here that you can kiss. HMMM, not to long ago, you were singing the praises of JV who was touting the Magicos as THE BEST. The only thing I find more pathetic than your ass kissing of the reviewers on these forums is you. You were in your typical rare form on that JV Magico "the best speaker ever" blog.

First of all, understand YOUR limitations, that is what a real man can do before he can move on from his sophomoric imitation of a lonely shoat. Second, your swift judgment of me because I "owned Wilsons" is amusing as you have no idea about my past, what equipment I have auditioned, owned, currently own, sold and set up for a living OR how many sound rooms I have personally built. On the other hand, I am sure, my qualifications to read and interpret these "reviews" pales in comparison to your suck ass groveling to these reviewers, your only claim to fame in life or on these boards. Pathetic really.

So Mr. Buffoon, keep sucking the rear ends of these reviewers, and maybe you too will someday have THE BEST, although, to do so based on these reviews, you will have to buy a new system every month.

A real legend in your own mind.

Jim Hannon -- Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:27

Sorry if I set off a firestorm by using the phrase "The Best System I've Ever Heard in a Studio (or perhaps anywhere!)." I was truly stunned by the quality of the sound that I heard and its ability to capture so much of the live performance. In the past decade, I believe it is the only time I've used the term "best" in my reviews or blogs when referring to audio gear. I did qualify it by saying it was the best I've heard in a studio.

I am not on drugs, unless you count Aleve, and I think the Pearson rule of thirds is a good starting point (and oftentimes, a good ending point) for loudspeaker placement. Carl Marchisotto set up the Nola Metro Grand References I'm reviewing in my listening room and they sound terrific using the Pearson rule of thirds. However, in the same room, John Hunter set up the Vienna Acoustics "The Music" loudspeaker much further forward and wider apart---right next to the side walls (They do have that top module that is able to swing independently from the bottom module). Both of these seasoned professionals used their ears to guide the positioning of their respective speakers. Others, like Bob, use detailed measurements in combination with listening.
 
Unfortunately, I use the word "best" as a relative term for a lot of things in my experience. I had some seared Ahi Tuna a few weeks ago in the Wine Country of Northern California, and it was the best Ahi Tuna I've ever tasted. I'll stand by that. However, I will try to avoid use of the word "best" when referring to audio gear (but NOT recordings!)
 
Happy Listening,
Jim
 
 
 
 
 

Priaptor -- Thu, 04/21/2011 - 18:07

No need to apologize and my bad. You explained yourself more than needed. I get your point. My only issue is how often I have read "the best" on these forums and magazine.

Besides, having had the amazing Micro Grands and now that I have the even more amazing Baby Grands, if you don't mind, please use the term "The Best" in your review of the Metros.

Jim Hannon -- Fri, 04/22/2011 - 11:31

You are right that the term "the best" is used too frequently in high-end audio, as well as in just about all product categories. I'm in the market for a really good "point 'n shoot" camera to take to the Munich High End Show, and I find myself using Google to search for "the best point 'n shoot digital camera", etc.

I've had discussions with HP about the use of this term (the best), and I know he'd like us to avoid it altogether. We'll try to do better. I will say that when a reviewer or forum participant clearly describes what sonic attributes are most important to him/her (namely, his frame of reference), I think it's okay to evaluate components against that reference and say which one or ones are at the top in his/her experience.
Jonathan Valin does a masterful job of doing just this in his upcoming review of the Magico Q5 in TAS (speakers which I have heard at length and can say are "stunning" in their musical realism).

You are one lucky guy, and you must have a great set of ears, if you have a set of Nola Baby Grands. HP loved the Micros, too. Carl is clearly at the top of his game.

The Metros are remarkable and coupled with a reel-to-reel gem like Greg Beron's UHA-HQ Phase Six deck and Tape Project tapes, I'm getting some of the "best" sound I've had in my own listening room---oops, I may have to re-phrase that for the review and also provide a context for that statement: I haven't had any of the recent higher-end models from Wilson, Magico, Focal, Magnepan, Hansen, Sonus Faber, SoundLab, or YG Acoustics speakers here, among others, (but have heard most of them at shows---I know, I know). Fortunately, I can compare the Metros to a lot of other speakers I've had here.

So what is the best point 'n shoot digital camera?

Enjoy those Nolas!
Jim

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:07

Now the "best" point and shoot camera is dependent upon price and whether you want the "best" pictures or ease of use and gimmicks. Let me first say, that while I am a photography nut and love all the gadgets I suck as a photographer. However, after many tries of P&S cameras and for all the naysayers regarding the price of the camera versus its peers, my personal "best" and the one that will rival the IQ of much more expensive DSLR is the Leica X1 and I have had no desire to replace it-it is a keeper. It is a superb camera. Many would be buyers were holding out until the Fuji X100 was finally released and now that it has been, those who were on the fence are running to the X1. Those who owned the X1 and also bought the Fuji are selling the X100 as it has been a disappointment but are making their money back on Ebay as it is going for a premium.

Assuming you don't want to spend that kind of cash, I would recommend the Canon G12 or S95. Of the two I like the S95 better as it is going to give you identical IQ to the G12, is cheaper and much smaller and the kind of P&S you can really take anywhere it is so small.

As to the Micros v. the Babys, the signature of the speakers are very similar. I love both and in fact, have always had a passion for a smaller stand mounted speaker. What I find with Carl's products are that even given the size of the Baby's you can still get the intimacy of a small speaker with his large speaker, something I never experienced in the past with my Wilsons.

However, what I am finding with the Babys is that the speaker is capable of such low end depth just how critical room setup is with this speaker to get optimum results compared to the Micros. I too do not necessarily follow a strict rule for speaker placement and need to work within the new room I have, which is very large, but I do follow some basic rules to start and usually find myself with a final setup, nowhere close to "the rule".

In my current situation, using ASC full and half round Traps, I am trying to convert the large room into a more intimate environment that I personally find most enjoyable. I am "almost" there. Whereas with Micros, I needed little room treatment and was able to compensate for most of the room interactions by a near field placement, such is not the same for the Babys. I took delivery of more traps than I would have cared to purchase a few days ago and am getting very close to what I personally like. I have successfully reproduced the transparency of the Micros with much better depth and resolution than what I was able to get from the Micros and have fixed the problems I was experiencing at low frequencies giving me a much more coherent soundstage. When I first took delivery of the Babys many people were asking me what I felt compared to the Micros and I was reticent to reply as I quickly realized more work would be needed on the room. Now that I am getting close the are wonderful indeed.

Jim Hannon -- Fri, 04/22/2011 - 16:41

Thanks for your suggestions about cameras! I appreciate them. One look at my blog will tell you that I could use a better camera (and/or a better operator). Both Tom Martin and Jonathan Valin recommended the Canon S95 to me, whereas Robert Harley uses the Canon G10 for his show shots. It's surprising how many of our writers are camera buffs.

I heard the Babys at CES with the same Greg Beron UHA-HQ Phase Six tape deck that I'm using. It was definitely my cup of tea (Note, I avoided any kind of "best of" appellation, although if I had written a show report, it would have been in there) and I find myself day-dreaming about them. The Metros get you a lot of the way there. The midrange openness of the Nolas is not only seductive, but sounds like the real thing and the highs are "to die for." I'm also amazed Carl is able to coax such powerful bass out of those relatively small drivers. More later.

Thanks again,
Jim

Priaptor -- Fri, 04/22/2011 - 16:47

Jim,

The G9 I liked better than either the G10 or the G11 but then Canon got some sense and built the G12.

However, as I stated, given the all the benefits of the S95, that would be the camera I would get of those available today. You can't go wrong with it.

returnstackerror -- Fri, 04/22/2011 - 14:48

@trponhunter -- Sun, 04/17/2011 - 17:45
I find it amazing that so many audiophiles can critique a professional installation so quickly and definitively, with no professional training themselves. Their only qualifications are that they own a stereo system and listen to it. Many of them have very little or no technical knowledge

 

again..... you missed the point.

I never critizied Bob and his room............ I asked the question, based on two observations I saw from the posted photos, whether some of the golden rules (which include room treatments) needed to be modified if this room indeed did sound so good.

The other point is, if we use the analogy of "amatuer" car builders... their results can be as good as the professionals. The advantage amatuers have is one of time.

While I am not a professional acoustical engineer, I have built from the ground up, several rooms. I just finished my last one after 2 years of part time work and experimentation and the room measures flat and sounds very very good. And the quality of craftsmenship is very high.

I am willing to share photo's/measurements with you in a PM.

So be careful when you sling an arrow that the guy on the other end of a forum is some idiot audiophile. In all fields of endeavour (hobbies or not) some amatuers can produce great products (cars/houses/listening rooms/etc) that rival professionals.

As I say, the one advantage amatuers have is time.

Jim Hannon -- Tue, 04/26/2011 - 13:03

Paul Stubblebine provides more details about the room in his response to my blog (in response to Art Noxon's questions).
You might want to check it out:http://www.avguide.com/blog/the-best-system-i-ve-ever-heard-studio-or-perhaps-anywhere

All the best,
Jim 

zead -- Tue, 04/26/2011 - 14:01

 
 priaptor,
               wether you concur or not the G12 is my idea of BEST

Priaptor -- Tue, 04/26/2011 - 15:54

Of the available P&S, assuming you count the G12 as a P&S, the G12 is in fact "the best" for the money.

Assuming IQ is important, G12 and S95 are equivalent but the G12 more capable. Canon took the right steps with both.

However, assuming money is not an object, the IQ, the X1 with all of its "issues" is the "best"

returnstackerror -- Tue, 04/26/2011 - 15:10

 thanks, Jim (and Paul Stubblebine!!!).
 
Mystrey solved.
 
As we all know, a great "system" ... a truely great "system" is 50% the room.... so whenever a "system" is said to be the best or one of the best, I almost dont care what equipment is used.... because that equipment can only "sing" within a great room. In my opinion the room makes or breaks the deal.
 
Therefore I am very interested in how the rooms acoustics are implemented, especially as Jim pointed out, in a room that is not a general purpose listening room.
 
Thanks,
 
Peter

Elliot Goldman -- Thu, 05/05/2011 - 11:40

Guys,
I have been around this stuff for a long time and in fact had a pair of Grand Utopia Ems in my showrrom for a year and was told by the company that mine sounded as good as they have ever heard anywhere. I heard them at the factory in France and the pair here sounded better by far.They were about 8 feet from the rear wall and about 3 feet from the side walls FYI
I have met and experienced Bob Hodas work at my  deceased partners old house.
What a recording engineer and an audio listener want can be very different things. MY partners room was a massive home theater and Bob did an excellent job on making the room work and getting the frequency response of the speakers to be very neutral. Having said this and having listened to the system it is not what I am looking for and not what many of the posters here are looking for either.
The Grand Utopias and many other large speakers DO NOT work well near walls PERIOD. Ask Magico, Wilson. Focal, Magnepan, Scaena, Quad, B&W,Martin Logan should I go on...
Jim has his opinion and he is free to express it and to be honest no one can tell him what HE likes however I agree with Priaptor ( he is as his name implies LOL) , in my 30 plus years of selling, installing and setting up many of the worlds great speakers and having access to HP and his system never have I experienced a "BEST" sound with a speaker in extremely close proximity to a wall. I am not a fan of EQ as Mr. Hodas uses however I am not dismissing the tool and its purpose in applications that are different than my own and many others prefer. It is the difference of a luxury car to a sports car in my mind.
THis forum and the Magazine have gotten lost in a series of non interesting BESTS.
It is beyond my ability to comprehend how this many reviewers and non have heard each others description of the BEST !

All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.