Will Creek 5350 SE drive Magnepan 1.6QR?

You are right, the truth is not for everyone

That BLOWS my mind that you call it the truth. What are you using as a "reference" system? And you STILL have not shared your experience with magnepans with me- I asked a real question and you ignore it- that's in bad taste.

Would it be possible for you to make a post with out mentioning open baffles, <0.005 THD(which is INAUDIBLE, BTW) or any other components of "the truth"?

When distortion gets below about 1/2 percent, its significance is small compared with other amp specs. The kind of distortion matters too. IM is the worst, and is usually the one quoted. Harmonic distortion can be indistinguishable from the harmonic overtones that musical instruments produce. Any THD spec better than 0.1% is just playing a numbers game.

All equipment specs are insignificant compared with the characteristics of microphines used to make the recording. I have a test recording where Julian Hersch reads one of his columns using several dozen different microphones, all of them well-regarded models. The differences are astonishing. And it is really hard to say which model is "best".

Didactically is (from his other posts, as well) into numbers. Stats. Especially the ones that go where no human tympanic can. Go figure. I miss my Magnaplanar Tympani 1-Ds to this day. I would get a pair of 20.1s in a flash if I had the space. HUGE space. And then, some very serious wattage to drive those babies. Have to settle for my Caravelles. High class problem, indeed.

The reference for 'truth' in audio is, 'true to the original'. That is, the more a system will reveal exactly, truely, the sonic character of the source material, the closer to the truth.

Producing the recording itself is on them to provide, as closely as possible, the 'sound' the musicans created in making their music, in the environment in which is was made. For instance a well produced, and engineered recording will reveal, not only realistic detail, such as vibrato, breath, fingers squeeking on strings, and other subtlties that are smeared by over-mixing, and distortion noticable, but the acoustics of the hall itself in playback ---system permitting, that is.

But of course, if systems to not reveal such realism that may be in the recording, the listener will literaly, 'not know what they are missing'. Ergo, a method to discover the 'truth' in audio playback, is to use reference earphones (SHURE E2 $100) to first hear the sonic quality of a recording, then compare to what degree the system, setup, and room are distroting that truth.

Then, of course, it is evident the significance the quality of the recording itself plays in this discovery of audio truth. So I refer you to a list of tried and proven sonically superior reference quality CD's at the MUSIC link at www.linkwitzlab.com

While offering at the same time a short cut to getting to that truth in one's system. The suggestion that those concerned about the accuracy of playback in their systems tend to end up with dipole speaker designs, and a low distortion amp to power them. Whether reference quality recordings are played, or not. At least then, the audiophile can 'hear' the 'truth' of the quality of the recordings played.


BTW, <0.005% THD being 'inaudible' is the whole point. The only good distortion is 'inaudible' distortion. Otherwise it mixes with the signal from the recorded material and it becomes very difficult to hear (discern) truth from the musical fiction that results. Or at least the sonic quality of the recording itself.

So, the truth will not be revealed until the system gets out of the way, since it, and the room, is the biggest liar in the process.

That is all I am saying. All you can say is, either you do not care to hear the truth, but rather are interested in achieving that personal preference for what sounds 'good' to you, or that you too seek the turth in audio. I believe that is the qualification, or disqualification, for being an 'audiophile'.

That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.

I believe the only reference for what is 'best' in recording and playback is the live music in the environment in which it is recorded, or 'true to the original'.

Too many in the recording industry are either ignorant of this principal, or do not find it worthing to pursue. As well as too many audiophiles who would otherwise have influence on the industry to make better recordings.

EVery aspect of recording, and the equipment used, can be referanced back to the live performance: studio, or auditorium. And should be. There are some few who do very well in producing 'live' like recordings. The trick is to find them, which can be all the more difficult with a playback system incapable of revealing the quality of the rercording, the good and the bad.

However if the system is designed to mask the all too numerous poor sonic qualities of recordings, it also masks out any possibility of hearing the 'live' like excellence of well produced, and engineered recordings.

BTW there is a list of tried and proven sonically superior, reference quality, CD's at the MUSIC link at www.linkwitzlab.com in a variety of musical genres.