You are currently viewing ZeroGain's archive. This provides a plain text version of actual threads and forums for easy access. If you would like to see the original version of any page with all links and images included, click below.
View Full Version : Marantz - are they
davidcotton
23rd June 2003, 17:21
Round or flat earth?
With all the talk of the various earths I've become curious. My gut feeling is that they are more or less round.
If someone could enlighten me I would be grateful.
Cheers...
timpy
23rd June 2003, 17:22
I'm pretty certain that from most point of view, they are about as round as it gets....
Cheers
amazingtrade
24th June 2003, 00:43
so what Naim be flat earth? :cool:
Originally posted by amazingtrade
so what Naim be flat earth? :cool:
you make no sense! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------
Timpy, funny you should say that. As I tried explaining the whole round flat thingy to Mrs MO. I think i've got the basics of the different earths. I told her she was round (she wasn't amused) but then thinking about it, i've never heard a hint of stage from her set up! (6000ose/6010ose and mission 702e).
This is probably MOre to do with poor speaker set up (she's not interested enough to compromise the rest of the room to work it around the speakers).
However.........
It can bang out a tune like a good un though. Drives hip hop, and MOre upbeat dance by the scruff of its neck. Does MOre chilled out vocal acoustic pioeces well too. Infact, it even sounds quite good out of the room!
Does this mean flat earth is just poorly set up round earth?
OOOOOhhhh!!!! That's gonna go down well!
zanash
24th June 2003, 07:56
IMO .....Flat Earth system's, or any other, that can only reproduce a portion of the information recorded on a disc, or any other media, are flawed. Thats not to say there are any perfect systems out their, but some systems seem to be able to reproduce more of the tonal timing and spatial information than others.
I really find it hard to understand why a proportion of a systems performance can be disregarded. Then to justify that lack by calling it flat earth.
Now this is not to decry any makes or philosophies, its just my observation. The gear I own has had seriously bad pressand a band of detractors in the past.
Certain makes are said to be incapable of imaging by others, my gear has been said to be undynamic. But it is not without dynamics, and I've tried to improve the areas where its deficient, rather than gloryfing them, in a flatish earth way.
As to the gear in question, well its not my cup of tea, and yes I 've owned some, but it's always considered to have a relatively good alround performance.......so is likely to be rounder than the flat earths would like.
sideshowbob
24th June 2003, 08:07
I can confidently talk about this, having been involved in so many debates about it....
Brands aren't round or flat, people are. Flat earth is a description of how you listen, not what equipment you prefer. If you listen for soundstage, timbral accuracy, etc, you're round, if you don't, you're flat. FWIW.
(Oddly, however, most people who call themseves Flat don't actually understand, and think it just means buying Naim.)
Frankly, I wouldn't get too worried about the distinction, it doesn't really matter.
-- Ian
LiloLee
24th June 2003, 09:13
I go along with Ian on this one.
I had some guys 'round on Sunday and one guys system is Sonic Frontiers CDT/DAC, Valve pre, OTL Valve power and large Lowther Speakers. Using equipment definition this is RE, but infact he describes himself as a FE and listens for all of the usual PRaT traits.
BTW
Isn't the Sonic Frontiers transports fantastic
http://leehibbert.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sfcdt.jpg
http://leehibbert.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/otl.jpg
Oh and this'll make you laugh. What one guy did to make his Naim CD5 sound better
http://leehibbert.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/naimcd5.jpg
julian2002
24th June 2003, 09:25
lee,
does that iris on top open up thunderbirds stylee? if so then i want one jsut for that!
i've tried a number of supports under my cd5 - nordost pulsar points, townshend ss, paving slab, squash balls cut in half, bubble wrap, other air bladders. some have changed the sound however none have done so in a way i liked - the ss was perhaps the most radical change, lots of soundstage, air and space (from a naim !?!!!) but little prat, goovieness, etc. so the sink now lives under my pre and the cd 5 sits on top of a simple glass / metal alphason rack.
what were the 'improvements' made to the cd5 by the torlyte? similar to the ss? or better groove, prat, etc?
cheers
julian
LiloLee
24th June 2003, 10:02
does that iris on top open up thunderbirds stylee?
Oh yes. A thing of beauty.
The guy who put the RA stuff underhis Naim would definately be in the RE camp, so it didn't do anything froma FE point of view. I personally felt it made it sound like a Rega Jupiter which would have cost him 1/2 of what the Naim/ RA & Flat cap (not in picture) cost.
What one guy did to make his Naim CD5 sound better
Sacrilege :D
Jay
Donut
24th June 2003, 12:37
Originally posted by sideshowbob
Brands aren't round or flat, people are. Flat earth is a description of how you listen, not what equipment you prefer. If you listen for soundstage, timbral accuracy, etc, you're round, if you don't, you're flat. FWIW.
Ian, I'd not thought of it like that before but that seems a very sensible way of looking at the "earth" thing. Most would consider my system essentially "round" although I have a TT and like the analougueish sound of the TEAC - for me I would consider myself and my system to be oval:MILD: and getting flatter with each future upgrade.;)
Donut
How much would one of them there Sonic Frontier transports set you back then?
zanash
24th June 2003, 15:18
Sideshowbob.............spot on !!
badchamp
24th June 2003, 17:32
Originally posted by MO!
How much would one of them there Sonic Frontier transports set you back then?
They're now discontinued but there's recently been a couple around on Audiogon I think for around $2.5K. New was $7k :eek:
Robbo
24th June 2003, 17:35
I have lusted after one of these since I saw the hifi world review a few years back:) trouble was they were too expensive then.
Robbo
Joolsburger
24th June 2003, 19:43
Roundish versus flat is all a bit strange.. I think it may be fiction.
No one has yet described it in a conclusive way and I think that references to PRaT and imaging are just further complicating an already confused idea.
It seems a given that all hifi owners aspire to the best of all worlds but the words used to describe sound quality are so jaded as to be meaningless.
Who wants a system with no sense of timing, who would want one with poor perspectives or the wrong tone when real instuments play? Even in that last sentence there are contentious terms and I have tried to be as basic as I could.
Maybe the question isn't round or flat but more about loud or not? I shifted my listening priorities when volume was becoming an issue and I needed better results at lower levels it lead me to looking into speakers and amps that gave different results to my traditionally flat TT amps and speakers.
Funny that now it's roundish (using the PRaT model) and I have become used to the sound it's better in most ways... except volume.
Seems a lot of the flat earthers are always on about power reserves and dynamic swings etc I doubt that's needed to such an extent at lowish volumes.
Just my tuppence worth on a quiet evening...
Copyright © ZeroGain.com