Speakers, the Hi Fi Type that Is.


Recommended Posts

Never heard of them until this morning, Jean Maurer speakers...JEEZE the price per pair is phenomenal!!!

Mind if they sound as good as they look, I might get a pair when I win the lottery!!

Check this video out on how they are carefully made.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They look like they are made from high density fibreboard, can't see a problem it's much more stable than wood boards. I wonder what the actual cost of a pair of speakers cost minus the profit??

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd never hear the difference from my old Wharfedales anyway.  I guess our stereo systems tend to say a lot about us, eg age, state of health, even musical tastes.  Mine are still back in  the baroque so apart from organ music I don't really need anything too elaborate.  I do like to feel those pedal notes below 32 HZ though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using a Celastion Ditton 44 on the right channel & the smallish speaker that came with the cheapo Panasonic stereo on the left... I'm using odd speakers as SWMBO wont let me have two 44's in the lounge as they're too big. When Mother-in-law gave me the two 44's a decade or so ago I wired them both up to the Pana & they sounded fantastic, SWMBO comes in & says "they're too big, they have to go." I pleaded & groveled & she said I could keep one. I said "oh no you can't gave odd speakers, it'll sound awful." To prove it I played Bohemian Rhapsody over the two 44's which sounded very good, then with a 44 on right channel & a Pana job on the left & it sounded just as good. I was crestfallen & SWMBO was looking very smug as she was right. The other 44 is in a spare bedroom that's used as a junk room...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a pair of Realistics in my office, they have large 15 inch, wooffers and a couple of smaller speakers. They need new cabinets, but boy they have beautiful sound qualities. They are only rated at 25 watts max at 8ohms. But they sound far better than the two Marantz speakers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Brew said:

All that money and still built like an Ikea kitchen cabinet!

 

That's beneath you Brew. and also inaccurate  As an engineer, you will know that materials count and in this case they seem to be using HDF.  It's consistent and stable, as well as being better than the crud usually used for kitchen cabinets.  And you also neglect to mention the final finish..  But whatever.. the real work is in designing the cabinet to suit the drive units and crossover, to make an enclosure which will achieve the sort of response required for the design objectives.

 

There's not much difference between designing a speaker and designing a car.  You start from the basis that there is no such thing as perfection.  So then you look at design objectives and potential market and design something to suit your target market and budget.

 

There is no such thing as a 'perfect' loudspeaker, but there can be one which matches perfectly (as near as makes no difference) to the drive characteristics of the amplifier you are using, and the room it is in.  I'm fortunate in that respect as my speakers seem to match my room well. They are a low efficiency, but high accuracy design based on a classic BBC studio monitor design and are made of beech ply.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ayupmeducks said:

They are only rated at 25 watts max at 8ohms. But they sound far better than the two Marantz speakers.

 

Sorry mate but that is meaningless. 25 watts is their power handling capability.. which implies that you'd kill them if you forced them to handle much more for very long.  But it says nothing about volume/loudness.  And in any case, most of the time most of us are listening to way below 25 watts amp power.

 

When looking at a speaker, it's generally stated as  'x'dB for 1watt at (I think) 1.83 volts. So what it is describing is sensitivity.  Some speakers which are very sensitive, will go very loud for very few watts input.. others may need a lot more power behind them to go loud.

 

Mine are only about 84 dB for 1 watt...  that is to say they are relatively insensitive and need a bit of 'oomph' behind them to go loud.  They are also only rated at max amp power of around 70w.. so they can't take too much punishment.  Yet they were never troubled when I was using 100+ watts per side of valve amplification, and they work very well with my current 60 watts or so per channel of solid state.  It's about not going daft with the volume control.

 

The other major parameter of speakers is 'impedance'  In practice, this varies with frequency of the signal input and the lower it (impedance) goes the more trouble the amp will have driving it.  Although my speakers are relatively insensitive, their impedance doesn't drop much  below 6 Ohms across the audio frequency band. so they hold up pretty well.  Some speakers.. especially certain Klipsch models drop down to 1 ohm or so and are a pig of a load for a normal amp. 

 

Add in finally that amps respond differently to impedance.  A 'perfect' amplifier, ought to be able to deliver double the power into half the impedance.. but few do.

 

So.. in the end. it is about choosing a speaker which works in your room.. and then an amp which will drive that speaker.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DJ360 said:

That's beneath you Brew. and also inaccurate  As an engineer, you will know that materials count and in this case they seem to be using HDF.

 

Having a bit of a jocularity failure this morning are we Col?

 

You assume it's high density fibre yet it may not be so and the construction method is just like most flat packs, pre-machined, slotted, stapled and glued together. As for the finish, it's good but we are not talking about the holy grail, there are speaker cabinets of equal finish for far less money. The fact something has an outrageous price tag is no indication of quality nor does it deserve extra reverence because of the mythology surrounding it.

At this price point you are long past the point of diminishing returns and though I've had people insist they can tell the difference I seriously doubt humans have the auditory acuity to do so.

 

Like cameras and  computers, with Hi-Fi  there is so much hype that reality is just a distant memory,  the bottom line is the amount of money they can persuade people to part with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:)

 

I didn't watch the video to be honest. .. and I saw nothing to indicate price, but I reacted to your slight hint of cynicism. ;)  I've watched most of it since, though it struggles to load properly. I don't know the brand either but suspect it may be something to do with JM Labs/Focal.. usually regarded as a French Co. At least the Focal bit is. Or was.  I'm not defending that company in particular and it's true some companies charge exorbitant prices for some kit. 

 

However, there are also seems to be a disconnect in the minds of many, regarding the cost of quality kit.  In  some ways it goes back a long way.  For example I recall being pretty shocked when I bought a copy of the Gramophone Magazine catalogue of available recordings sometime in the early 1960s.  There was a section in it covering reproduction of music, care of records etc.. and I was shocked to read that a quality hi fi cartridge could cost upwards of TWENTY POUNDS!!!

That was back in the day when newspapers often described people in court preceedings as  'An £8 a week labourer'.. or similar... and I was just starting work on £6 per week.  I could barely comprehend the cost of the sort of record player and associated kit that would warrant a £20 cartridge.

 

Fast forward a bit to the early 1990s, when one of the hi-fi mags reported that 'a H-Fi' had dropped from No.3 in the list of newlyweds desired purchases (after a house and a car).. to No.14.    This seems to coincide with the rise of digital recording and replay.  CD was promoted as 'Perfect Sound Forever'.  Of course it was no such thing.. but it did make decent quality reproduction a lot cheaper.. especially when people became convinced that 'A Hi-Fi' was something you bought for 150 quid from Curry's. Many seem to have assumed that because CD was 'perfect', it would be 'perfectly' reproduced by any old tat.  Many people are perfectly happy with such kit and seem blissfully unaware that an alternative exists.  What's more, whole generations of younger people now seem to only experience recorded music through their phones, or through things like 'BluTooth' speakers.

 

So.. if your perception of audio perfection is defined by CD, or worse, MP3, coming through a small mono blutooth speaker, then you are likely to be a bit shocked at the prices of some kit.  But what you are getting for your 150 quid is the modern equivalent of a Dansette.  I does the basics.. but that's about it.

 

A quick Google of inflation shows that £100 in 1960 equates to almost £2000 in 2020.  So your 20 quid Dansette would now cost £400..., yet people are shocked that hi fi of far better quality can run into thousands.

 

If you ignore the ultra cheap tat which both sounds dreadful and falls apart in minutes, and also ignore the stupidly overhyped 'megabucks' stuff at the other end.. there is a wealth of seriously good kit in between.   Again... most people in the UK are unaware that we have many World renowned hi fi manufacturers here.  Just for starters. Linn, NAIM, Cyrus, Rega, Meridian, Arcam, QUAD, Tannoy, KEF, Wilson Benesch, Michell, SME, Roksan, etc. There are many others, as well as a whole load of respected foreign manufacturers from Europe, Scandinavia, the US, Canada and the far East.

 

Rega will sell you a competent , durable and always repairable ( not that they break) record player for under £250.  Doug Brady Hi-Fi will put that together with a decent Marantz amp and some Dali speakers for £600.  Remember what your Dansette would cost now?  They will also sell you a CD/streaming system including amp and speakers for £800.   That's equivalent to 40 quid in 1960. Twice the price of a Dansette and infinitely more capable....

 

However, if you are keen.. want better and can afford it.. it's out there. My speakers cost £1000 ( 2.5 Dansettes  ;) ) 25 years ago and just get better as I feed them a better signal.

My record player is a it of an extravagance at £5k plus. but I've been collecting records for 60 years and they cost me much more in total, so I may as well hear them properly.  And anyway.. it's only a dozen Dansettes or so..

 

The only way I can justify the £3k I paid for my amp, is that it sounds wonderful, and better than any other I've had. Designed by Professor Malcolm Hawksford and hand built by Dr Richard Bews. Both highly respected academics.  Looking at the small transformer and decidedly odd collection of components inside it.. it shouldn't work...  but it does.

 

One final point worth making.  A lot of popular music these days, especially the 'dance' sort liked by 'da Yoof', is almost completely electronically produced, with much use of autotune on vocals etc.  It's arguable that many young people have no clue what 'real' music sounds like.  I'd say it's difficult to know how modern pop should sound.  So, I audition audio kit using natural vocals and natural/acoustic instruments, well recorded.  If the kit can get that right.. it stands a fair chance of getting the rest right.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware that using more than 25watts will burn the voice coils out.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some high end tube amplifiers will knock you back $3000 to $5000 each!!

A feller who bought most of Marantz's tube components at a warehouse sale and got a contract to use their name on aftermarket Marantz tube design, sells completed "tube Marantz" amplifiers, original designs, but with more up to date capacitors and better quality resistors markets in the several thousand dollar mark!!

There are several small companies now marketing high quality vacuum tube stereo amps, so if anyone is willing to fork out $8000 for an amp and pre amp, couple of grand for a turntable, then a pair of Jean Maurer speakers would fit the bill to compliment the high end amplifier kit.

Jean Maurer is a Swiss company, they only deal direct to customers in the US and Canada, and have very few dealers within Europe.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had not realized that inflation in the UK had reached that level.  I do remember that a Shure v15 3 was out of my league.  I could not afford one until I had been working in Canada for a year or two.

I've said this before but I will always remember the late Peter Anson of Pete's electronics on Arkright Street for steering me away from some cheap and nasty, so called unit audio to some equally priced but far better equipment that  has become an interest for life.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification about JM.  It doesn't sound like he's related to JM Labs.

 

As an aside, Ken Ishiwata, who was the well known Brand Ambassador for Marantz, died last December.  He was highly respected and seemingly well liked by all who met him.    https://www.whathifi.com/us/news/ken-ishiwata-legendary-hi-fi-figure-dies-aged-72

 

As for prices.  This is partly related to what I was saying above about people's perceptions of value/cost etc. 

 

Valve amplification in home hi-fi never really went away as far as enthusiasts were concerned.  Many people continued to use amps such as QUAD IIs , Leak Stereo 20s or Radford ST 25s, Rogers Cadet and so on.  Similar happened in the US with companies such as MacIntosh.

 

Meanwhile, a small number of specialists continued building valve amplifiers in the UK.    These included 'cottage industry ' types such as Bill Beard and Glen Croft, who made amps under their surnames.. Doug Dunlop who used the brand name 'Concordant' and another Tom from Nottingham, Tom Willis who made Art Audio valve amps in Calverton, but is now listed as being in Hucknall.

 

Bigger companies also flew the flag for valves and there's some interesting DNA in there.  So, when a company called Michaelson and Austin started making something called the TVA10, few knew that TVA stood for 'Tim's Valve Amp' as the designer they employed was called Tim De Paravicini.  That amp was famous for 'self imolating', though much liked for its sound.  Eitherway Michaelson and Austin went out of business.  Anthony Michaelson started a new brand 'Musical Fidelity', which I think he still runs. 

 

Below. Papworth built TVA10

tva10sml.jpg

 

Meanwhile the 'TVA' designs were eventually bought by the Papworth Trust.. a manufacturing arm of Papworth Hospital in Cambridgeshire which also makes high end leather goods and other stuff.  I became involved with 'Papworth Audio' after it was bought from the Papworth Trust by it's designer.. a former BBC radio engineer called Eddy Fincham. Eddy uprated the manufacturing quality of the TVA10 and another design called the M100, making them far more reliable, better built and gorgeous in solid mirror polished stainless steel casework.  He also designed a number of other well regarded valve and solid state amps. I worked with Eddy on distribution of his amps for some years.  He has now pretty much retired and has wound up the brand.

The reason that Papworth were able to use the TVA appellation is that the intellectual property rights became Michaelson and Austin's because  Tim De Paravicini was their employee.. and the designs were sold on.

 

25 years ago, Papworth M100 would cost £3800 per pair.  TVA10, a stereo 50w power amp was £1750.  M200 was £5000 per pair. I used a pair of M100s for about 25 years. The only thing ever needed were a few replacement power valves.

 

Papworth M100 Mono amp.

m100sml.jpg

 

It is a little known fact that some 25 years ago, the then owner of QUAD was persuaded to re-manufacture the legendary QUAD II valve amplifier.. these days used in pairs, for stereo.  Since QUAD no longer had the manufacturing capability for valves.. though they still serviced everything they'd ever made... and also since the original power valve was no longer in manufacture, they chose Eddy at Papworth to design and produce the new QUAD II.  He made around 1200 pairs, using slightly different valves and more up to date connectors. Some 'de luxe' examples were produced, with gold plated casework and solid silver product plates.  They sold for £6k per pair.

 

Gold Plated QUAD II Anniversary Edition

gold_pair%5B1813%5D.jpg

 

 

Meanwhile Tim De Paravicini started 'Esoteric Audio Research', usually known as EAR and has gone on to be noted as a genius in both valve and solid state amp design, although somewhat 'erratic'.  He claims that he can make an amp out orf solid state that will sound and perform exactly the same as one made using valves.  I believe him.  He is that good.. though oddly, I've never quite taken to his 'house sound'.

 

EAR 869

EAR_869-2x.png

 

There are countless other valve amp makers out there

 

Valve amplifiers are inherently more expensive to make (properly) because they need more than just a few PCBs. Transformers need to be very well designed to avoid saturation etc. and everything needs to be able to deal with a bit of heat. However, there's no doubt that there's more than a bit of 'glamour'  and nostalgia associated with valve amps and they need to look as good as they sound.

 

Back to prices.  The most expensive I ever heard of was the Japanese built Audio Note 'Gaku-On' monobloc amp at over £120k per pair 30 years ago.  If that was a bit rich for you.. there was always the bargain basement Audio Note Ongaku Stereo Integrated amp with 27 Watts per side.  A snip at £27k.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 2 pre amps both with phono stages. A Croft valve and an musical fidelity solid state. Both sound excellent. The Croft is beautifully hand made. My deck is a modest Thorens 10(4) the brackets are because I’m not sure. It’s a one o something, 4 I think. Sounds okay with an ortofon cartridge. I am speakerless as I sold some kef floorstanders to finance the home made horns which are a work in progress as is my class A John Linsley-Hood amp. I had until recently a home brew (not by me) Mullard 3-3 valve amp which I also sold. Not a brilliant system but not terrible.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, philmayfield said:

Is the aural acuity of an average person sufficient to justify the extortionate cost of expensive hi fi systems? Is it like driving a Rolls compared to a Mondeo? I'm not an avid listener to music so I have no experience of comparative systems.

When you listen to a good well balanced system it is quite simply a joy. I realise some people have cloth ears and would not reap the pleasure from one. I have listened to some HiFi systems that quite literally took my breath away. 
There is a well known term ‘audio foolery’ when people will spent extortionate amounts on items said to improve the fidelity of your system. One company sells fuses to put in the plug of your equipment to improve the sound! You would not believe what they cost. The list of things you can buy to allegedly improve the sound is as endless as it is ridiculous. Here is one example. Col you need these!

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that barring people with serious hearing problems, people can hear the differences if they exist.  If we use colour as an allegory, I think I could tell you if a particular colour was more 'red' for example, than another.  It doesn't matter how red.. because neither of us can know what the other perceives as 'red'.

 

With audio, I can clearly hear the differences between systems, or components within them.  If I can't, I buy the cheaper one.  

 

OTOH, I also believe that those who advocate spending thousands on fancy speaker cables, interconnects or mains leads...are mostly just convincing themselves that they can hear a difference.  I just use studio grade speaker cables and well made, but not hugely expensive interconnects, with good plugs.

 

Another factor is that different people seem to listen for different things and have different views as to what is important.  With me, it's about good stereo imaging, clarity and tonal accuracy.  I don't want Joni Mitchell sounding like Gracie Fields.  Others seem to be obsessed with thunderous bass to the exclusion of all else and yet others seem to need the equipment to provide 'Pace, Rhythm and Timing', often abbreviated to PRaT, whereas I reckon the music, not the kit, should do that.

 

That's the basic argument from me. Trust me.. spend a bit of time on a hi fi site and you'll hear all sorts of debate. Valve v solid state, digital v analogue, etc., plus the whole subjective v objective assessment debate. There are also 'cable wars'.. and then the debates sparked by the Linn haters, NAIM haters etc.  It's all good fun.. ;).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Letsav.. I'm envious of your Croft amp. I'm not sure if Glenn Croft is still in business, but he was apparently uncontactable during the day because he would work all night building amps when it was quiet.. then sleep all day. Here is the last internet presence I can find.. over ten years ago.

 

http://www.croftacoustics.co.uk/main.html

 

I agree with you about the 'joy' of a good system.  When you get those surprisingly rare opportunities to just sit and listen properly.. and you hear things on familiar recordings that have previously escaped you, or it all just falls into place.  It's all worthwhile.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was given a Leak point one valve amp by a neighbour some 18 years ago. I didn’t keep it as it was only one, not a pair so I swapped it for the Croft and MF with John Mann who sold vintage HiFi from his shop on Mansfield Road. I may sell one of the pre amps at some point. The Croft is lovely sounding. The MF is very crisp. Different but little to chose between the two. I don’t really need two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, philmayfield said:

Is the aural acuity of an average person sufficient to justify the extortionate cost of expensive hi fi systems? Is it like driving a Rolls compared to a Mondeo? I'm not an avid listener to music so I have no experience of comparative systems.

I think it obeys the law of diminishing returns.

There was a very noticeable difference between the kit Pete sold me.  Rogers Cadet 3 valve amp, a couple of Wharfdale super Linton speakers which I still use, and a Garrard sp25 turntable.  Later upgraded to the Thorens I still use.  The SP 25 had a noticable rumble that I could hear when I put a better cartridge in it to get the low bass of the organ music that  i loved.

The Ferguson stuff I'd been looking at over at the co-op wasn't a patch on it but cost nearly as much.  I doubt if I would hear a lot of improvement today if I could even afford the really high end stuff.  My old loppy lugs are nowhere near as good as they were fifty years ago.  ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Letsav, .. I've just looked at this link that you posted above.  http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm

 

It's actually not the most lunatic thing I've ever seen in the audio 'lunatic fringe' and later I'll come back with more funnies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if those pebbles strapped to my toes would get rid of nail fungus....:ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...