Marantz - are they

Discussion in 'Hi-Fi and General Audio' started by davidcotton, Jun 23, 2003.

  1. davidcotton

    davidcotton prog rocker, proud of it!

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dorset
    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...
     
    davidcotton, Jun 23, 2003
    #1
  2. davidcotton

    timpy Snake Oil free!!!

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Cheltenham
    I'm pretty certain that from most point of view, they are about as round as it gets....

    Cheers
     
    timpy, Jun 23, 2003
    #2
  3. davidcotton

    amazingtrade Mad Madchestoh fan

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Manchester
    so what Naim be flat earth? :cool:
     
    amazingtrade, Jun 24, 2003
    #3
  4. davidcotton

    MO! MOnkey`ead!

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
    MO!, Jun 24, 2003
    #4
  5. davidcotton

    zanash

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Notts.
    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.
     
    zanash, Jun 24, 2003
    #5
  6. davidcotton

    sideshowbob Trisha

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,092
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    London
    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
     
    sideshowbob, Jun 24, 2003
    #6
  7. davidcotton

    LiloLee Blah, Blah, Blah.........

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire
    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
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Oh and this'll make you laugh. What one guy did to make his Naim CD5 sound better
    [​IMG]
     
    LiloLee, Jun 24, 2003
    #7
  8. davidcotton

    julian2002 Muper Soderator

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    5,094
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Bedfordshire
    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
     
    julian2002, Jun 24, 2003
    #8
  9. davidcotton

    LiloLee Blah, Blah, Blah.........

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    789
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Maidenhead, Berkshire
    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.
     
    LiloLee, Jun 24, 2003
    #9
  10. davidcotton

    jay

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sacrilege :D

    Jay
     
    jay, Jun 24, 2003
    #10
  11. davidcotton

    Donut

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    172
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Wales
    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
     
    Donut, Jun 24, 2003
    #11
  12. davidcotton

    MO! MOnkey`ead!

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    4,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    How much would one of them there Sonic Frontier transports set you back then?
     
    MO!, Jun 24, 2003
    #12
  13. davidcotton

    zanash

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    3,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Notts.
    Sideshowbob.............spot on !!
     
    zanash, Jun 24, 2003
    #13
  14. davidcotton

    badchamp Thermionic Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    NW London
    They're now discontinued but there's recently been a couple around on Audiogon I think for around $2.5K. New was $7k :eek:
     
    badchamp, Jun 24, 2003
    #14
  15. davidcotton

    Robbo

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Berkshire, UK
    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
     
    Robbo, Jun 24, 2003
    #15
  16. davidcotton

    Joolsburger

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2003
    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    0
    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...
     
    Joolsburger, Jun 24, 2003
    #16
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.