Question for Mr. Jadis

[charing]

Yo Jadis, since you are one of the very few who understand the real meaning of Hi-End in this forum, what can you say about this statement?

My fearless analog forecast is that more "high-end" analog users will finally wake-up and realize that their megabuck analog rigs are mostly 'hype and air'... and eventually sell them off at 10% their original cost and settle for all-time classics costing 5% of their set-up...

[jadis]

charing,

I guess basing it on my own high-end experience, I would say that Vintage Dog
is quite correct in that prognosis, although, I do not really know about the math involved
in people selling off their megabucks stuff and converting it to 5% of their set-up....
Perhaps that is more figurative than factual but in essense, honestly, I agree.
I do not have a megabuck analogue front-end, if by megabucks it would be in
the range of perhaps 150t-500t front end systems. Mine was under 100t, although
we are talking of late 80s prices. I'm not saying that there is no improvement between
a cheaper turntable and an all out 500t table. There is. But in the end, most probably,
the large difference in cost may not be worth the money dished out. I am of that opinion
since before as evidenced by the fact that I have not 'upgraded' my analogue system
for decades. A well designed table that has little rumble and quiet motor and that delivers
music to the ears is good enough for me. I hope that is the point that VD is making. When
people realize that their needs are met, there is really no need to spend that much more.
What VD refers to is that those who have realized that they have made a mistake in
buying these megabucks analogue systems would eventually correct it and go back
to something that works effectively and cost a lot less. This is entirely possible, but it
entails two things, if the owners agrees to dump his high priced table, or if the owner
is willing to swallow his pride in admitting he made a mistake...These may be the x-factors.

[arnel90]

thanks jadis for those kind words, somehow it assures a mortal (aka - no money for a megabuck analogue front end) like me to enjoy my novice set up and focus more on appreciating the music.

[hein]

I enjoy listening to my Alpine system in the car as much I do with my home audio system. I do trip on Ipods and downloaded MP3 music. I accept the limitations and strenghts of all formats which I use. In the end, its all about the music.

[jjm]

Philip,
Your mature and unbiased answers all the more shows how seasoned an enthusiast you are!

[jadis]

jjm,hein,arnel90,

thnx too for the kind comments. I try my best to speak my mind, and the truth. Many
people will not agree with my views and I absolutely respect that. That is why I always say,
birds of the same feather flock together. We flock with those whom we agree and feel
comfortable with.

[jadis]

And as an appendum to the recent topic, I would like say too that in any hobby, there will always be products built at entry level price points and those at stratospheric levels.
Simple case is in cars, where lots of people buy Toyotas and fewer buyMercedes Benz and
even fewer buy Ferraris. I've always told my friends that both the Toyota and the Benz
will use up the same time to bring me to my office ( in traffic conditions). Hence, I do not
see any sense in spending 3 or four times more if I do not see any additional benefits in
riding a Benz. That is of course a very simplistic thinking and it has it's own argumentative
flaws. But my point is, buying a Benz boils down to pride of ownership for people who buy
them. That is the so called 'air' in owning something like this. It is prestige. And I think there
is even one car dealer called Prestige Cars, Inc. Be that as it may, I have no problems in
seeing and listening to anything in the stratosheric levels, price wise. In fact, I always jump
on an invite each time I get one. They are normally impressive in looks, design and engineering- easy to see those qualities. And I have rarely heard a super system that sounds
like a low end system. At worse, it could be ordinary, and not bad. At best it can be jaw
dropping. When I go home after these sessions, my attitude does not change. I listen to my
system in the way I listen to my KIND of music. Other systems can show off dynamics that
mine can't , but it doesn't bother me bec that is not my music. I would praise other systems
for being able to bang around and produce walloping bass and transient dynamics. But that
does not mean I'm a bomber (bombero, as the term was called for bass bombers then). I
only objectively comment on that system's outstanding qualities. So in the end, we can be
both objective and subjective, that is what makes this hobby so enjoyable to me.

[vintage_dog]

charing,

I guess basing it on my own high-end experience, I would say that Vintage Dog
is quite correct in that prognosis, although, I do not really know about the math involved
in people selling off their megabucks stuff and converting it to 5% of their set-up....
Perhaps that is more figurative than factual but in essense, honestly, I agree.
I do not have a megabuck analogue front-end, if by megabucks it would be in
the range of perhaps 150t-500t front end systems. Mine was under 100t, although
we are talking of late 80s prices. I'm not saying that there is no improvement between
a cheaper turntable and an all out 500t table. There is. But in the end, most probably,
the large difference in cost may not be worth the money dished out. I am of that opinion
since before as evidenced by the fact that I have not 'upgraded' my analogue system
for decades. A well designed table that has little rumble and quiet motor and that delivers
music to the ears is good enough for me. I hope that is the point that VD is making. When
people realize that their needs are met, there is really no need to spend that much more.
What VD refers to is that those who have realized that they have made a mistake in
buying these megabucks analogue systems would eventually correct it and go back
to something that works effectively and cost a lot less. This is entirely possible, but it
entails two things, if the owners agrees to dump his high priced table, or if the owner
is willing to swallow his pride in admitting he made a mistake...These may be the x-factors.

hi jadis,

thanks for your response. you captured pretty well the key points i wanted to make. Also, the "Fearless Forecast" series of threads are considered "light" threads and some comments may be classified as "wishful thinking". i guess 10% is wishful thinking on my part, but that was also meant to challenge some current thinking that one has to spend megabucks to have a satisfying system.

lastly, watch-out for trolls in these forums. some posts are meant to spur controversy just to challenge the fun here at WS.

welcome to WS. glad to have you here.

vd

[jadis]

hi jadis,

thanks for your response. you captured pretty well the key points i wanted to make. Also, the "Fearless Forecast" series of threads are considered "light" threads and some comments may be classified as "wishful thinking". i guess 10% is wishful thinking on my part, but that was also meant to challenge some current thinking that one has to spend megabucks to have a satisfying system.

lastly, watch-out for trolls in these forums. some posts are meant to spur controversy just to challenge the fun here at WS.

welcome to WS. glad to have you here.

vd

Hi Vintage Dog,

Thanks too for this great place, a very unique experience
in my entire audiophile life. And I'm happy to be here, as evidenced
by the time I give to each questions posed by audiophiles, new or old.

I remember when I was a newbie, about age 24, and I would
hunt for any audio related stores in Manila. In desperation, I even read
the classified ads of the Bulletin Today for audio sales (that was how
low life was for an audiophile then). Through that I met the more
'senior' audiophiles and I would frequent their homes for 'buy and sell'
expeditions on hardwares and softwares. It was in this period that I
met 'scammers' ( I believe a number of audiophiles HAD been scammed
at least once, being sold lemons instead of of strawberries ) and sincere
audiophile who were intent on 'teaching' newbies like me the rudiments
of going through the high-end pathway. The former just wants a quick
sale and run, the latter is looking for a long lasting relationship wherein
a sale is but an initial salvo in a good friendship. Luckily, there were more
of the latter. I am grateful to many of these nice people who really
taught me how to go through hi-end procurements without turning me
into a bank robber. They imparted good methods on how to buy
stuffs that are 'value for money'. There is a trick there. Because, what,
indeed, is value for money in hi-end? It takes a keen ear to know and
recognize good sound. And I believe had I hanged around then with
people who had taste for bad sound but good sales, then I would probably
not know what good sound is. And I learned from these good people that
good sound is NOT expensive sound. My first system that I can call
hi-end cost a total of 87t pesos, back in 1986. And I enjoyed the
sound I had then. And my audiophile friends told me that it was not
bad at all. I know today one cannot buy a speaker cable for 87t at
the superstores in shang mall, hi-end has gone crazy, price wise.
Me and my friends lament this fact, but nothing much we can do.
I keep imparting my philosophy to new audiophiles I meet that in
the end, it is YOU who pay the money who should be happy with
what you get, not what others say about your system. I wrote that
as early as 1991 in AV Rumours. I saw the writing on the wall then,
people were buying based on FAD, in fact, I became a victim of that.
And having shaken the cobwebs on those dark days, I am here
always to impart an attitude of self confidence and self fulfillment.
'Trust your ears', not other peoples' mouth.

And re the trolls, I may have smelled one....I have been
here on net long enough....Thanks, Dog...this thing is good for the
audio community.

[dinolara]

Mr. Jadis,

In buying an equipment, do you consider resale value? This is common when buying cars, houses etc.

[jadis]

dinolara,

Oh yes, I most certainly do!!!! I would not want to get back 10% of my money, I
should want at least half.

[qguy]

Jadis,

Do you like singles ?...I am not referring to single ladies...although who would NOT want one or two ..hehehe..seriously I mean whats your take on Single ended systems and Single Drivers loudspeakers...did you ever had such a system before ?

thanks

[jadis]

Jadis,

Do you like singles ?...I am not referring to single ladies...although who would NOT want one or two ..hehehe..seriously I mean whats your take on Single ended systems and Single Drivers loudspeakers...did you ever had such a system before ?

thanks

Oh wow...this should really be interesting. But let me just put in two quick answers. I've never owned SETs and I've never owned single
driver speakers. That said, let me open the discussion...

I must admit I do not have prolonged and in depth sessions
with SETs and SDLs. I have heard a few SETs before and if my
definition is right, probably the only SDL I've ever heard would be
the Tannoy Westminster, as it had one driver.

On the SETs, what comes to my mind would be the Cary with
the 211, the Jadis with the 845 ,the Canary with the 300Bs and the
VAC with the 300Bs. I hope these are what are called SETs. In one word, I would say these amps are gorgeous, tube-wise ( I love the sight of tubes ) and gorgeous, in the midband range. Very life-like, and very
realistic. Very body-ful and what we would call 'makapal tumunog'.
And I heard them when mated ususally with small speakers, which
are very efficient, bec most SETs are 'low' in wattage.

That said, my feeling would be that SETs are not for me bec
I look for a 'bigger' sound. Tall images, wide soundstage, and
would play with relative ease with most kinds of music, be it
big band, jazz, or classical. So one reservation I have for not
owning SETs would be low power. And its inability to drive full-
range loudspeakers. My taste runs to full range sound, though not
necessarily the hefty bass variety. And quite simply, two way speakers
are not for me. If I have a second system, like one for the bedroom,
most probably I would be open to getting a SET type system. I would
like to hear what SET owners have to say here, maybe their findings
would be different than mine; as they say, what is good for the goose
is not necessarily good for the gander.

As for single driver speakers, I feel I will never be able to live with
it. Basically not my type. I've lived all my life virtually with full range
cones and value top to bottom coherence in my music, and to move
to a single driver might be too radical a move for me...But who knows?

[qguy]

thanks appreciate the inputs..

[ihatejazz]

And re the trolls, I may have smelled one....I have been
here on net long enough....Thanks, Dog...this thing is good for the
audio community.

I am already feeling a guilty conscience here

[qguy]

Jadis,

I'm using a pair of bookshelf and the image of the singer is deadcenter between the LS, when your using large Ribbons like the maggies, how is the image of the singer presented to the listener since the ribbon is producing the full range from top to bottom...

[XLR_silver]

Jadis,

Do you like singles ?...I am not referring to single ladies...although who would NOT want one or two ..hehehe..seriously I mean whats your take on Single ended systems and Single Drivers loudspeakers...did you ever had such a system before ?

thanks

Oh wow...this should really be interesting. But let me just put in two quick answers. I've never owned SETs and I've never owned single
driver speakers. That said, let me open the discussion...

I must admit I do not have prolonged and in depth sessions
with SETs and SDLs. I have heard a few SETs before and if my
definition is right, probably the only SDL I've ever heard would be
the Tannoy Westminster, as it had one driver.

On the SETs, what comes to my mind would be the Cary with
the 211, the Jadis with the 845 ,the Canary with the 300Bs and the
VAC with the 300Bs. I hope these are what are called SETs. In one word, I would say these amps are gorgeous, tube-wise ( I love the sight of tubes ) and gorgeous, in the midband range. Very life-like, and very
realistic. Very body-ful and what we would call 'makapal tumunog'.
And I heard them when mated ususally with small speakers, which
are very efficient, bec most SETs are 'low' in wattage.

That said, my feeling would be that SETs are not for me bec
I look for a 'bigger' sound. Tall images, wide soundstage, and
would play with relative ease with most kinds of music, be it
big band, jazz, or classical. So one reservation I have for not
owning SETs would be low power. And its inability to drive full-
range loudspeakers. My taste runs to full range sound, though not
necessarily the hefty bass variety. And quite simply, two way speakers
are not for me. If I have a second system, like one for the bedroom,
most probably I would be open to getting a SET type system. I would
like to hear what SET owners have to say here, maybe their findings
would be different than mine; as they say, what is good for the goose
is not necessarily good for the gander.

As for single driver speakers, I feel I will never be able to live with
it. Basically not my type. I've lived all my life virtually with full range
cones and value top to bottom coherence in my music, and to move
to a single driver might be too radical a move for me...But who knows?

jadis,

you're the most open-minded hi-ender i've seen/read in this forum. keep it up!!

cheers!

XLR

[jadis]

ihatejazz,

most certainly you need not be guilty.
you are the analogue container van king, far from a troll.

[jadis]

Jadis,

I'm using a pair of bookshelf and the image of the singer is deadcenter between the LS, when your using large Ribbons like the maggies, how is the image of the singer presented to the listener since the ribbon is producing the full range from top to bottom...

After countless of box type speakers, I finally have been living
with planers since '97. Imaging wise, the planars may have some
deficiencies when compared to cones, specially book shelf types.
Small box-type speakers really image well, I have experienced that.
That perhaps is one of their main fortes. Proac Tablets, Spica, WATT,
many British small speakers, all excellent imaging speakers. The
Maggies, imo, produces lesser focus because of this top to botton ribbon
effect. But that is not to say that the center image is low since the ribbons
go all the way down to the floor. For some spectacular reasons, the center
image is still at eye level; I cannot fully explain that, perhaps it has to do
with room interactions with the speakers. Maybe our acoustic engineers
will have a better explanation. That said, the center focus of the Maggies
are not that solid as would be a small mini monitor. Cone speakers are
known for their coherent time alignment, something their designers
talk about as their strong points. I would agree here. And another advantage of cones is that it is easy to toe it in for added focus.
Toe-ing in the Maggies too much (in trying to increase focus, may tend
to increase its tweeter level too, hence, it may sound too bright. )

[jadis]

jadis,

you're the most open-minded hi-ender i've seen/read in this forum. keep it up!!

cheers!

XLR


XLR,

What I say is what I feel. Many audiophiles will even disagree with me on my
views and others will agree...That is what is nice about our free press.

That is one thing when we read audio mags with ads, one cannot seem to be
convinced that the reviewers will not favor their advertisers. There is politics, and there
is the money factor. With me, I have no advertisers to worry about. That goes too
for all those free-wheeling audiophiles here, we can all say what we feel.