Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 14:16:52 GMT
I've had a bit of a spell where I've not listened actively to my system. In fact, I've not really had my best bits wired up. This is pargely because I just wanted to chill out and have the music somewhat in the background. A more dynamic presentation wasn't something I was seeking.
Ive often struggled to put together systems that play at a range of volumes and work equally well with background and active listening. Probably the two extremes were Krell amps and Apogee speakers on one hand and a Puresound A30 on the other. The former were incredible at realistic volumes but just didn't engage me at lower levels. The Puresound was a lovely thing at moderate levels but it just didn't have the impact for anything more "full on".
I'm just wondering how much of a factor this is for others and also whether this aspect is another factor is why people often disagree over their experiences. Is your system one for ALL seasons or do you always listen in the same way at a similar volume?
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 6, 2015 15:21:53 GMT
For everything, definitely
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 16:12:41 GMT
For everything, definitely Ditto. I suppose to a degree, it depends what you mean by loud. As I have Quad57s, I guess many would say that they don't go that loud. However, they are certainly capable of realistic levels in our music room and there are times when Ronnie (wife) can't stay in the room unless I turn it down. This is with 8 glorious watts of Stereo 20 power. It does delicate and low volume clarity too. |
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 6, 2015 16:44:06 GMT
I totally get where you are coming from. with my system it is at it best belting out, but it now does refined pretty well when required. I guess the last 3 years I have pushed speed and resolution and only the last few changes I made have given me refinement I also enjoy. I guess we sometimes want both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 17:29:18 GMT
I've been a box-swapper for many, many years and I am really wanting to look at what makes me switch, because I've had some blinding systems that I've still torn down. Recently I got bored of the whole thing and I've also come close to trying every single thing that's ever taken my fancy.
This factor of adaptability to different volumes and listening needs is one of the reasons why I've swapped. I've had systems that were better at reproducing realistic scale, bass and volume. I''ve also had systems that were perhaps a bit better at the late night listening.
What I'm using now is probably as close as I've been to an ideal balance. It won't reach the sort of SPLs and scale that a full range system will, but my room is only about 15 x12 so it has its limits.
It's good to hear that others have systems that will provide for "all seasons". I don't think I want to listen to full scale music at realistic levels as much as I thought. Sometimes I've built "impressive" systems that just aren't catering for my long term listenng needs. It's a bit like roller coaster ride for me: exhilarating but not something I'd want to spend hours on. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 6, 2015 17:36:38 GMT
Yes it makes perfect sense
Some people like Jerry are just constant box swappers and accept it is part of their nature. Others like you and me battle with this to some degree. I think real intimacy the kind you describe and full scale sound have very different charcteristics. I guess it comes down to what compromises are you willing to settle for.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 6, 2015 17:40:23 GMT
For me, both scale and low level resolution are a must. I use my system for big music sessions right down to late-night TV watching so it has to do both well.
Relatively, I would say that it does big scale very well and small scale/low volumes pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 6, 2015 17:41:02 GMT
I think "all seasons" is tricky. Like Gordon, I have electrostatics at the moment, and like him, with a sub-woofer. The ESL's are so directional in the treble, that if you sit in the seat that is outside the speakers (to the right of them) all you can hear is the sub-woofer. So my main system is a "sit down and listen properly" system, and useless as a cocktail party system. I have a Nad 3020 in the kitchen, at the moment with a couple of JBL bookshelves behind a curtain, but prior to that for a short time with some Lowther Fidelios, and that was a gorgeous "cocktail" system. With the recent Pi experiment, I am now able to have "cocktail" music synch'd in the living room, and kitchen, and provided the sub is turned off, and volumes are reasonable, that works nicely enough. But my "sit down and listen" system is heavily biased towards "real" "live" and "acoustic" - working well with simple balads, acoustic jazz, chamber music and to an extent full orchestral. It is not the most convincing reproduction of Pink Floyds "The Wall" that I have ever heard (although not bad with the sub) And my main system is integrated with the AV set-up and so has yet another "season" it has to perform for. That works surprisingly well - really dramatic home cinema (the bizarre bit is how good football matches are). But there again is a compromise regarding seating position, since if the Quads are bought far enough into the room for the optimal listening experience they block the view of the TV for peripheral viewers All seasons is tricky. My systems have always been compromises of one sort or another. And I am not persuaded I have yet heard anybody elses system that is "perfect".  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 18:36:27 GMT
For me, both scale and low level resolution are a must. I use my system for big music sessions right down to late-night TV watching so it has to do both well. Relatively, I would say that it does big scale very well and small scale/low volumes pretty well. I think I've previously tried to strike this balance, Martin. Having thought about it a lot recently, I feel it's not been the right balance for my own particular needs. For one thing, I don't have the room size to accommodate the speakers without sonic or aesthetic issues. One of my Apogees was actually blocking a door  I also tend to end up thrill-seeking, which often limits the length of listening sessions and also narrows my listening tastes to the best recordings. Im now happiest with a balance that is best in the middle ground (I'd guess about 90db at the listening postition), yet can come very close to matching my peak experiences at low levels. At higher levels, it still gives me an exciting time, but the bass levels, dynamics and SPLs aren't really up there with my previous excesses. it's a personal view, but I feel many of the amps I've owned tended to have a "sweet" spot in terms of volume level where they sound at their best. The same goes for speakers, but the amps seem to dictate my listenng levels more often. There have been exceptions, but Naim amps in particular have always struck me this way. lower powered ams like the 110 have been captivating at moderate levels whereas a 250 just seems to need to flex its muscles. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 18:38:42 GMT
I think "all seasons" is tricky. Like Gordon, I have electrostatics at the moment, and like him, with a sub-woofer. The ESL's are so directional in the treble, that if you sit in the seat that is outside the speakers (to the right of them) all you can hear is the sub-woofer. So my main system is a "sit down and listen properly" system, and useless as a cocktail party system. I have a Nad 3020 in the kitchen, at the moment with a couple of JBL bookshelves behind a curtain, but prior to that for a short time with some Lowther Fidelios, and that was a gorgeous "cocktail" system. With the recent Pi experiment, I am now able to have "cocktail" music synch'd in the living room, and kitchen, and provided the sub is turned off, and volumes are reasonable, that works nicely enough. But my "sit down and listen" system is heavily biased towards "real" "live" and "acoustic" - working well with simple balads, acoustic jazz, chamber music and to an extent full orchestral. It is not the most convincing reproduction of Pink Floyds "The Wall" that I have ever heard (although not bad with the sub) And my main system is integrated with the AV set-up and so has yet another "season" it has to perform for. That works surprisingly well - really dramatic home cinema (the bizarre bit is how good football matches are). But there again is a compromise regarding seating position, since if the Quads are bought far enough into the room for the optimal listening experience they block the view of the TV for peripheral viewers All seasons is tricky. My systems have always been compromises of one sort or another. And I am not persuaded I have yet heard anybody elses system that is "perfect". I've ran a sub in the past, Richard and it was probably the closest I've come to having it all. Unlike many who claim problems with integration, I never found this. I might well look out for another REL at a cheap price. You've set me thinking |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 18:51:49 GMT
I think "all seasons" is tricky. Like Gordon, I have electrostatics at the moment, and like him, with a sub-woofer. The ESL's are so directional in the treble, that if you sit in the seat that is outside the speakers (to the right of them) all you can hear is the sub-woofer. Not any more. The REL has been relegated to the computer system and then only on the second notch on the volume control and sometimes right off!!. I started to find it intrusive even with the KEF101s. The new stands make it unnecessary with the 57s anyway. The bass is clean and deep enough. I do sometimes wonder why people find the Quads so directional. Maybe the 63s are. In our room, you can move around and the image stays right where it was and neither of us can detect any loss of treble output. We have tried both the Stereo20 and the 303 of late and they do much the same thing although the valves feel slightly more real. I suspect we are back to expectations again. I can quite happily listen to the Wall with sensing any loss of impact or scale. As we have discussed before, what you call pipe and slippers....I don't. So, for what we require of a hi-fi, ours does all it should - loud or soft. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 18:53:03 GMT
I've ran a sub in the past, Richard and it was probably the closest I've come to having it all. Unlike many who claim problems with integration, I never found this. I might well look out for another REL at a cheap price. You've set me thinking If you are passing through France.............. my Quake is for sale  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 19:28:07 GMT
I had an REL Storm. I used to have a spare set of preamp outs but not anymore. Still, I'm sure I can make up a lead or use a splitter. I don't like the idea of those Speakon leads.
|
|
|
|
Post by liffy99 on Jan 6, 2015 19:50:20 GMT
Just like cars and bikes really - one size will never fit all.
I too have 'stats at the moment (my fifth brand, having started with 57s but found them too dynamically limited) and they do very much influence the sort of music I play on them. My old Tannoys were better for Floyd ( in fact for a lot of rock music I sometimes feel any half decent PA based speaker would do the job) but the stats and woofers do a fantastic job on more simply recorded drums and stuff - Eagles, Keb Mo, Stekpanna all sound pretty dynamic, weighty and loud enough for me.
All I need are several music rooms ! Well, one would be nice, rather than the lounge. Thank heaven for RoomPerfect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 20:03:28 GMT
Interesting thread... It's occured to me before that maybe a system should only sound "real" or "correct" at realistic volumes. Only then would the Fletcher Munson equal loudness curves allow the perceived frequency balance to be correct? Do systems that sound rich, warm, full, satisfying etc at low levels intrinsically sound over blown, blousy, boomy etc if played at realistic levels? Can a system really do both and still be accurate in either?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2015 20:15:16 GMT
Interesting thread... It's occured to me before that maybe a system should only sound "real" or "correct" at realistic volumes. Only then would the Fletcher Munson equal loudness curves allow the perceived frequency balance to be correct? Do systems that sound rich, warm, full, satisfying etc at low levels intrinsically sound over blown, blousy, boomy etc if played at realistic levels? Can a system really do both and still be accurate in either? I'm sure you are right. Everything sounds best when you hit the sweet spot volume wise. I suspect that a system that also sounds good or nice when playing quieter than 'real' is all we can ask for. |
|
|
|
Post by pinkie on Jan 6, 2015 21:43:54 GMT
I had an REL Storm. I used to have a spare set of preamp outs but not anymore. Still, I'm sure I can make up a lead or use a splitter. I don't like the idea of those Speakon leads. I have a bk xls200ff and can't praise it enough. The high level (speakon) input works wonderfully and the ability to blend a low level signal from the 5.1 amp which has no filter, whilst setting gain separately for low and high is brilliant. A tiny delicate touch of extra bass on the 2 channel below 50hz,and a slightly less subtle dose of full on bass from the 5.1 subwoofer channel |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 7, 2015 6:25:26 GMT
It's occured to me before that maybe a system should only sound "real" or "correct" at realistic volumes. Only then would the Fletcher Munson equal loudness curves allow the perceived frequency balance to be correct? Do systems that sound rich, warm, full, satisfying etc at low levels intrinsically sound over blown, blousy, boomy etc if played at realistic levels? Can a system really do both and still be accurate in either? I tend to approach it the other way round, Jez. Get a system sounding really good in a room at realistic levels (i.e. not overblown, boomy, lacking in clarity etc.) and it usually won't disappoint at low levels. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jan 7, 2015 8:14:59 GMT
I prefer my system at a certain volume, where there is more information and detail - and oomph
That could be called it's sweet spot
|
|
