Kegworth Show Information

The information for this year's show is now live at www.thehifishow.com or by clicking on the show banner below.

NON EXHIBITOR ROOMS NOW OPEN - Special Offer....Stay Saturday, join in all the build up excitement on Sat night and then gain FREE access to the show on Sunday

LAST MINUTE WAM HIFI SHOW AVAILABILITY - ONLY A FEW EXHIBITOR ROOMS LEFT - ONLY 5 SLEEP ONLY ROOMS LEFT - ONLY 3 BIG SYSTEM SPACES LEFT

curry49

Newbie Wammer
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About curry49

  • Rank
    New Wammer

Recent Profile Visitors

53 profile views
  1. FREE book offer - again: “GUIDE TO THE BEST HI-FI STEREO SYSTEM - AT THE LEAST COST” https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07J5TVS7Z Hi, As promised, this book has been extensively revised and offered for free to facilitate access to the kind individual who has offered his services in ‘polishing’ the final product. As a consequence, this free offer is also open - from midnight to midnight (Pacific Time) on Feb 8th, 2019 - to anyone interested in getting a copy now. The book is offered in good faith. However, if it isn’t appealing, or if there’s strong disagreement with a point or two (as can always happen in hifi) please simply disregard the book. There’s really no need to publicly disparage (with detrimental consequences) something that has been given away, for free, in good faith and as a gesture of goodwill (not that this has happened, already). Thanks to everyone! Cheers [PS If you use the link and it says it is not available to Amazon customers outside the UK– no problem. Several options discovered by some in the thread. One option is super-simple; just log into Amazon and type the title in the search box. EDIT: It's possible that anyone who had obtained the previous version will not be able to access this new version (with Amazon supplying the old version asserting that you had already 'purchased' it). This has been my experience. If so, it might be better to 'borrow' the new version from someone who successfully acquired it, if possible,.]
  2. A valid point. But the problem is that one style might please some (especially those with very little interest in a particular matter) while the other style might please others; informing the interested reader on all relevant aspects surrounding the issue, instead of leaving the reader wondering about; who, what, when, where, and why. I've read several reviews that left me frustrated, with many unanswered questions which caused me to have to look for other reviews to garner the missing info. [For instance, how does the reviewed unit really compare with others like the writer's own reference gear?] Look at your example, then look at mine, and consider how much more relevant info is conveyed in the latter - leaving no unanswered questions. I agree that your suggested style is relevant, at times - and I do use it too. But wouldn't you also agree that the more infotmative style is relevant even to some readers at other times? The trouble is that some may have issues with either style, obviously, depending especially on their level of interest in a particular subject. But you cannot please everyone all the time. Can you? Cheers
  3. Not clear on that. [The editing offer?]
  4. Hi all, I'm very happy to report that a very kind individual from here has just offered (by PM) to assist with the editing of the book, as he's encouraged by what the book has to say. (As is commonly known, the greatest 'sin' is for a writer to self-edit. But many do it out of necessity, and some of us then get to hear of all the issues an editor would have addressed, as with here). So then, the book's one great disadvantage, on which its faults are blamed (the lack of an editor) is now being addressed. Yaaaaaay!!! And, as I'd mentioned in my reply; Together, I'm sure we'll be able to trim it down to that "great" book that lies under the "sloppy' surface - assuming I'm reading MIB's allusion correctly. Considering the fact that this book has already attracted a very favourable review from one popular hifi magazine, even in its initial state, I'm confident that the trimmed and improved version will be even more beneficial to anyone on a quest for better hifi, with info conveyed by a more concise book soon-to-be devoid of the distracting excesses which turned-off at least two important readers. Less is more? But that review, contrasted with MIB's views, illustrate how diverse people's opinions can be. Nevertheless, I think the latter is also right in some of the views he expressed, and this is the reason for the book's revision, despite a 'nice' previous review.. I've given myself a couple of weeks for the revision, but I'm actually aiming to complete this in a couple of days, really, as several chapters have already been cut. Thanks for all the interest shown. Cheers PS A review of the book is here; https://www.tnt-audio.com/books/guide_best_hifi_e.html Millennium, if you were searching for the book under discussion here, that's not it. Not sure it's OK to paste the URL outside of a free offer, but you can go to your country's Amazon site and paste the title in their search-box: "Guide to the Best HiFi Stereo System - At the Least Cost." Here's a pic:
  5. Despite the fact that I've quoted just one post here, I thank everyone for their input, including MIB (again). And as proof of my appreciation for all comments (including MIB's negative but mostly truthful remarks), I'm happy to report that my elimination of the five chapters previously mentioned is now apparent at the Amazon site (using the 'Look-Inside' feature). Just like MIB, I believe there's a "great" book in there somewhere beneath all the excess "slop" and, though I don't have the luxury of professional editing, as he rightly suggests (a feature which makes good books 'great') I'm determined to cut the excesses to bring this book as close to 'great' as my own 'make-do' editing can. The other changes indicated will also be implemented, beginning as soon as this is posted, but these will take a bit longer, as mentioned. At some point during this process, I could send a 'Word' copy to anyone interested in assisting with the improvements. And, as strange as this may seem, I'd be happy if MIB turned out to be the one to do this, as I actually like his honesty (if delivered in a less abrasive manner) but I doubt he'd be interested in such a waste of his time, so perhaps I'll just shelve this idea, after all. It was just a thought that sprung up while I wrote this. Nevertheless, I'm open to suggestions on this or any other issue. Still, despite appearances of late, I'd be remiss if I didn't say I'm very encouraged by the comments I've received here, and, again, I thank all who've made the effort to offer their views. However, I'm especially encouraged by these remarks, in particular, "Whilst agree with MiB's main points that the book needs polishing I have to say I agree with the general idea of it that modern speakers produce thin, bright and bland sounding audio...... I would encourage you to polish the book and continue with the theme...." Thanks for that, George 47. And thanks, again, to everyone. Cheers
  6. Point taken, Cable Monkey. However, my point is also that criticisms can be made without being insulting. For instance, you've just done it in a very tactful manner. Truth is that I agree with much of what was said, and I've already cut all of five of the twenty-nine chapters from the book, as I'd always felt that they overlapped too much and might have contributed to a sense of repetition. These are the chapters from "Balance" to "Why Small-Coned Speakers Can... etc." These changes will register in the 'Look Inside' feature in perhaps about 12 hours time. Further changes will see the cutting of large segments of some remaining chapters, especially on TTs and speakers, near the end of the book (as I think they're really too long) but this will take a bit longer to implement - perhaps as much a few weeks. So it's not that I don't respect and appreciate the criticism - it's what I'd sought from my friends, and what I'd sought from this free-giveaway exercise - I just don't appreciate being insulted in the process. The changes I've already made constitute evidence of the fact that these changes had long been considered, and also evidence of the fact that I agree with much of what was said (if not all). So, yes, I'm really sincere in my thanks to meninblack, and I'm hoping he will later confirm that the chapters I've removed were the main ones that irked him, as I suspect. Any other feedback from elsewhere will also be appreciated. It's my reason for this exercise, after all. Thanks
  7. Believe me when I say I thank you very much for the feedback. I'm sure you'd have seen in the introduction that this was not written at the outset as a book. It's a compilation of pieces I'd written at different times, and this I'm sure accounts for some of what you'd found - repetition and all. As to the 'English' issue, I'm sure there'll be several instances where I might have been saved by a proof-reader or an editor (I'm human and I do make mistakes). But I'm also confident enough to regard your biting remark with the level of concern it obviously warrants. [Edit: Look again there (though it's not perfect) then look at all my posts here, and the truth will be obvious.] They say less is more, sometimes. And I'd put this very point to one or two of my acquaintances who refused to say anything bad about the book, even when I asked them to be brutally blunt. And this is why I sincerely thank you for the brutal honesty my friends refused to afford me. I'd long had a feeling that the book would be better if I'd dumped or shortened several of the chapters which refer to issues which are covered elsewhere (sort of what a good editor would do) and this is another point you've confirmed. This was nice, though, in a twisted way, "With structure, discipline and a professional editor this could have been great." How magnanimous of you to say that. Careful there now - mind my swollen head. But, by your general tone, I can see where you may have been seeking to be insulting and obnoxious regarding something presented to you for free as a gift, literally. It's a pity. You could have said all of what you said without seeking to be so insulting about something you were given. I appreciate your feedback - just not how it was delivered. But I guess it's just your nature to be as you are. However, despite your n@$#y attitude, you have been very helpful. You've proven me right in all the niggling doubts I'd had. Thanks to you, there'll definitely be a shorter and better version of this book in a few weeks. And I thank you again in all sincerity.. Cheers. PS Edited simply to say; all the best to you!
  8. curry49

    Thorens Thorens Thorens

    I've just come across this Thorens thread and felt I simply had to contribute to a thread on a TT I feel very strongly about. It's one of my all-time favourites. Perhaps THE one. The following was recently posted at another site (only slightly altered) and I see it as quite appropriate to bring it here. Hopefully, some of the benefits from my many tests and comparisons (referred to below) will also be of assistance to some who seek help in addressing their own units. This Thorens report is couched in the context of a comparison with my Lenco and former Linn and, hopefully, may also be helpful in that regard. Lenco vs Linn vs Thorens 125 After my own recent experiences with a Thorens 125 (and Linn, and Lenco, and Techie too) I just had to agree with this; from a post elsewhere, “…the TD-125 can still keep up with contemporary high-end and very expensive turntables.” Especially because of its natural-sounding tonality, I can envisage opting for a 125 (or a Linn with a more bass-neutral “Keel” upgrade, or even a re-armed Techie) over several mega-buck TTs which are not as realistic in tone. I’d previously thought of tone and dynamics as equal in importance (with detail-resolution bringing up the rear) but recent events have led me to see tone as slightly more important than dynamism. I’d stress, however, that; while the 125 may be good with its own arm or the commonly supplied alternative, I find that it’s much, much better when the arm is upgraded. After years of acknowledging that my Linn was better than my 125/SME-3009II, subsequent experiments with both the Linn’s Ittok and a lowly Sugden SAU2 arm proved to me that the 125 was/is significantly better than my Linn (and more neutral; without the vintage Linn’s midbass hump) in my own personal opinion. YMMV. (Surprisingly, the SAU2 arm from a little Connoisseur BD2 was virtually as good as the Ittok – with MMs ONLY – and I believe its great performance against the Ittok and others is mainly due to the fact that its ideal low mass better matches the MM carts which I use). Regarding the Lenco L75, I’d lusted after one for quite some time – mainly because of its reportedly awesome dynamism. And I’d fully expected it to blow away all my TTs, based on all the reports I’d read. But, though the Linn was put out of the running by the Thorens (mostly because of its coloured midbass, IMO) the Thorens simply refused to be similarly defeated by the Lenco. It’s true, the Lenco was/is slightly more dynamic, but the Thorens is very nearly as dynamic while it also has a fuller and more natural tone (making voices and instruments more believable) in addition to being significantly more detailed and better at the fades of notes. Much more on these and similar views can be found in the book; “Guide to the Best HiFi Stereo System – At the Least Cost,” after a quick google-search. But I sometimes wonder if I’m one of only a very few who find the Lenco to be a bit ‘thin’ in its midrange tonality. My experiments have led to improvements with mats (which also brought improvements in low-bass, which I’d thought a bit light) but the major improvement in regard to midrange tonality (and in several other areas) came with the double-stacking of platters (+ the doubled mats). In fact, there’s at least one other Lenco user who suggests that his unit sounds a bit thin unless he double-stacks platters for tonal and other “huge” improvements. Incidentally, he stacks a very expensive VPI “Super-Platter” atop his Lenco, which he calls; “Yoda.” And his comments can be found in a Lenco-Heaven thread entitled. “What is the point of a stacked platter” Curious as to whether anyone else has had a similar experience regarding the Lenco’s tonality. (I sometimes wonder if my own unit was/is a bit extreme in this regard). Nevertheless, I very much like both the Thorens and the Lenco, despite the fore-mentioned concerns with the latter, and especially in a scenario where I’m keeping both. Both are great, and I believe stacked platters yield much greater benefits than all the other popular Lenco mods put together. Arguably, stacked platters bring a standard Lenco from Class C to Class B levels of performance. Perhaps the Lenco can be further modded to completely match or surpass the Thorens in tone and detail - and so my outlook may change, later - I'll continue to experiment there. But, today, if I had to make a choice between the two, it’s quite possible that I’d keep the one which sounds more natural to me, overall. So, yes, when the preceding is viewed against the backdrop of the many mega-buck TTs previously ousted by semi-standard Lencos in fancy plinths since its rediscovery in the Home-Despot Revolution, I have to agree with what was said here; “…the TD-125 can still keep up with contemporary high-end and very expensive turntables.” Yes, the 125 is good with the arms supplied by the factory - though, not as good as a pre-Keel Linn, in my experience. But, also in my experience (utilizing A-B comparisons with the same arm & carts) it can be much better, and better than the Linn, if the arm is suitably upgraded (to the likes of the better Grace, Mayware, MAS, Mission, Haddock, Ittok, Graham, Jelco, Rega, etc). Mostly due to its already massive cast-alloy 'sub' chassis (which had always made this TT secretly better and more neutral than the original Linn, which prevailed only because of its better arms) such an arm upgrade brings a Thorens 125 to the level of a modern ('Kore' sub-chassis upgraded) $10k Linn Akurate LP-12, in my estimation (which itself is not too far short of the ultimate 'Keeled'/Radikal $20k Linn Klimax, according to my research). Also, as seen above, I've found the 125 basically on par with a significantly improved Lenco, which has a history of ousting the likes of TNTs, EMTs, and Ariadnes in other users' systems, not to mention challenging the likes of Walker Prosceniums and SME 30/2s, as we've seen played out in the Home-Despot Revolution and in the ensuing years since then. I make these points simply to establish a context within which the actual quality of a suitably re-armed 125 can be more clearly illustrated. Vive la 125 Thorens!!!
  9. curry49

    Loudness Wars Question

    bigfool1956 Posted December 12, 2018 Interestingly the most recent Ziggy Stardust remaster is the hottest yet, but it still sounds better than any digital version beforehand. Not as good as the first pressing vinyl though, warts and all. LPs seem to nearly always get a higher DR, even when created from the same master. People have posited explanations for this across the web, but I've not seen general agreement as to why this may be. ------------------------------------------ The following is from a piece written elsewhere: The main problem for pop-music CDs, especially, is one of abuse, where engineers compress the music and limit dynamic range in order to produce the loudest music to gain an advantage in grabbing listeners’ attention over the competition. The practice has been common-place in the production of popular music for decades. It’s called; “The Loudness Wars” – and it’s killing the music. That’s one of the main issues holding back the digital format today, in the opinion of many in the know. Analogue media (such as vinyl and tape) remain largely immune to such extreme abuse, ironically because of their more severe limitations in the recording process. These limitations require more moderate recording levels and thus prevent them from similar levels of abuse and, therefore, ensure better quality recordings with more dynamic-range than what obtains with the more severely abused digital versions.
  10. curry49

    The BBC Monitor

    On 08/09/2018 at 07:42, Birdbrain said: You can see I changed my mind...... Master Series had thin walls but very thick front baffle. The weight of the SP9/1 was what repeatedly scared me off buying a pair. But what a fabulous sound. I made do with SP100 because I can lift them. I do think you need that big woofer to create a sense of scale and weight. I don't think 8" woofer can do it. I haven't experienced a 10" woofer to see if they can do it. I rather think that 12" is the minimum, and when you look at the choice you are severely restricted these days. SA active monitors with 8" bass unit were remarkable at what they could do, but it still wasn't like a 12" unit. Back in the golden era of hifi, real enthusiasts had 15" Tannoys built into their living room walls. 12" was considered not quite the real thing, and anything less than that just wasn't serious hifi. It was the coming of the 2 cubic foot speaker (BC1) which made the 8" woofer such a standard ----------------------------------------------- The BBC's LS-5/1a (by KEF) utilized a 15" (Goodmans) mid-woofer and two Celestion tweeters. Can't remember the tweeters' model # but they were the same as the Celestion units in my former BC-1 (1300, or something of the sort). Prior to this model, the BBC also had used a monitor which utilized an 18" midwoofer. So prior to the use of main-monitors with 12" woofers, the Beeb used even bigger units. Might have been nice if the hifi industry had cloned any of the "Beeb's" main monitors instead of emulating the albeit outstanding near-field monitors as the basis of speaker-systems purporting to be state of the art today. Not sure how such a claim could be made for modern speaker-systems based on models which the Beeb themselves readily admit were models with limited abilities for close-monitoring, and secondary to their main monitors. Nevertheless, there's no denying the fact that the LS3/5a and BC-1 (I forgot its BBC model #) are two of the most influential speakers the world has ever known, as it could certainly be argued that perhaps 95% of modern speakers are based on these two icons.
  11. Well said! My thanks go out to all who participated. Great site – amazing and welcoming atmosphere. Thanks again. Cheers!
  12. Highly gratified…? Same here, on that score. Still, I do like the LS3/5 and others like it (believe it or not). There’ll always be a place for close-monitors, but I also do believe they were pushed way outside their ‘comfort-zone’ and taken way out of context. Nevertheless, I absolutely respect the views of others who may see things differently on this or any other issue. Thanks for the feedback!
  13. You're welcome, of course. Got this, so thanks very much for the tip Ditto! Curious though as to whether anyone has found it interesting, so far (a bit like the anxious chef). Hopefully, it presents food for thought, at least. (Pardon the pun). Cheers
  14. Thanks for the heads up Regarding the free offer? No prob. Happy to oblige!