# Von VR-1 vs Pardigm S2 vs ??



## chesebert

Got the itch again!!! upgratitus !!

 how much better is Paradigm S2 from VR-1 and what other can you recommended around $2k new/used (no floor standing or electro) 

 Music preference: ALL less the very hard rock and rap 

 Room size: 400 SQFT, although I sit in the middle to prevent reflection from the back wall

 I prefer nice, warm, yet detailed sound with HUGE soundstage and can imaging like crazy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I am driving it with Ayre ax-7e (fairly warm amp)


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Got the itch again!!! upgratitus !!

 how much better is Paradigm S2 from VR-1 and what other can you recommended around $2k new/used (no floor standing or electro) 

 Music preference: ALL less the very hard rock and rap 

 Room size: 400 SQFT, although I sit in the middle to prevent reflection from the back wall

 I prefer nice, warm, yet detailed sound with HUGE soundstage and can imaging like crazy 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I am driving it with Ayre ax-7e (fairly warm amp)







_

 

Have never heard Paradigm S2 but as you know the VR1 is very detailed speaker with vivid treble response and large soundstage, but they are not warm sounding. I don't find them to be very forgiving speakers so bad recordings will sound bad etc. but high quality recordings will sound very detailed.

 I really like the *Green Mountain Audio* monitors:
 -Europa
 -Callisto
 These are time aligned drivers designs with very simple high quality first order crossovers that sound very natural, cabinets are inert heavy thick cast resin designs. The Europas can occasionally be found used at Audiogon for $600 but the upscale Callistos are almost never seen used. The used Europas are usually from people who have upgraded to Callistos. GMA designs are smooth and natural sounding and surprisingly forgiving of bad recordings so rock sounds great, and soundstage and detail are excellent.

GMA

*Current speaker collection used with subwoofer:*
 Tyler Taylo Reference
 GMA Europa
 GMA Callisto
 Von Schweikert Audio VR1


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have never heard Paradigm S2 but as you know the VR1 is very detailed speaker with vivid treble response and large soundstage, but they are not warm sounding. I don't find them to be very forgiving speakers so bad recordings will sound bad etc. but high quality recordings will sound very detailed.

 I really like the *Green Mountain Audio* monitors:
 -Europa
 -Callisto
 These are time aligned drivers designs with very simple high quality first order crossovers that sound very natural, cabinets are inert heavy thick cast resin designs. The Europas can occasionally be found used at Audiogon for $600 but the upscale Callistos are almost never seen used. The used Europas are usually from people who have upgraded to Callistos. GMA designs are smooth and natural sounding and surprisingly forgiving of bad recordings so rock sounds great, and soundstage and detail are excellent.

GMA

*Current speaker collection used with subwoofer:*
 Tyler Taylo Reference
 GMA Europa
 GMA Callisto
 Von Schweikert Audio VR1_

 

actually Ayre amp really tamed the high and instead of sharp I have extended. But I am having some problem with certain piano notes. As a piano player I am very picky about how piano sounds, and I think I am missing stuff (besides the low end), as in certain notes don't sound right (partly recording dependent)

 I really don't have any quibble about VR1 except I want to know if I can do better on monitors, since I do site pretty close, about 9ft from each speaker, which are 9ft apart. 

 what am I missing? (not mid range, cuz it bested HD650 already, not bass, cuz the size dictates that and 40hz ain't all bad, Must be the top end!!, I want the exact same speaker with smoother top end!)


----------



## Joey_V

Cheese,

 With regards to your question, I think that the Sig2 v2 should be an improvement over the VR1. I heard the VR1 and I wasnt too impressed. However, the Sig2 v2 with it's newly crafted Beryllium tweeter and improved driver composition should be enough to warrant an upgrade from the VR1. I say, if you're going to move up, move up to the S2 v2, not the original S2.

 Joey


----------



## VicAjax

i STRONGLY recommend you try to find a pair of DeVore Fidelity Gibbon 3 to audition.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Joey_V* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cheese,

 With regards to your question, I think that the Sig2 v2 should be an improvement over the VR1. I heard the VR1 and I wasnt too impressed. However, the Sig2 v2 with it's newly crafted Beryllium tweeter and improved driver composition should be enough to warrant an upgrade from the VR1. I say, if you're going to move up, move up to the S2 v2, not the original S2.

 Joey_

 

I will try that. I am at one of those point I upgrade or not 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but the newS2 is certainly interesting.


----------



## chesebert

My dealer is getting the new Sig!!! I am gonna go demo soon..woohoo..


----------



## mysticaldodo

Looking forward to your impressions.

 I place my VR-1 6.5 feet apart (due to room restrictions) and listening position is slightly more then that.


----------



## DarkAngel

*About VSA VR1........*

 These are rear ported (small ambiance port) and need several feet clearance out from speaker wall to sound best, otherwise you will get reduced soundstage and reduced detail. They will sound very good when set up properly and with sympathetic gear (warm side of nuetral)

 You won't believe how much better they sound supported by quality subwoofer. Sound is richer, lower mids fill out, sound stage expands, and of course dynamic range dramatically increases. Same comments apply to any 2 way monitor but especially true for VR1 which I find a bit lean/forward sounding by itself. Also notice that VSA sells a qulaity sub to be used with VR1..........

 VR1 is almost only speaker I have found that actually sounds better with grills on, notice the foam collar around tweeter.......it is there for a reason.

 The whole subject of speaker placement in room is extremely important and will make more difference than almost any equipment upgrade, so do your homework in this area.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*About VSA VR1........*

 These are rear ported (small ambiance port) and need several feet clearance out from speaker wall to sound best, otherwise you will get reduced soundstage and reduced detail. They will sound very good when set up properly and with sympathetic gear (warm side of nuetral)

 You won't believe how much better they sound supported by quality subwoofer. Sound is richer, lower mids fill out, sound stage expands, and of course dynamic range dramatically increases. Same comments apply to any 2 way monitor but especially true for VR1 which I find a bit lean/forward sounding by itself. Also notice that VSA sells a qulaity sub to be used with VR1..........

 VR1 is almost only speaker I have found that actually sounds better with grills on, notice the foam collar around tweeter.......it is there for a reason.

 The whole subject of speaker placement in room is extremely important and will make more difference than almost any equipment upgrade, so do your homework in this area._

 

grill on? I find the sound is congested with grill on and I think Von recommend grill off.


----------



## milkpowder

Sonus Faber Concertino Domus? It'll be less than 2k with stands. Never listened to them before, but seeing that you like the SF sound, the Concertino Domus might appeal to you. I was going to say the Sonus Faber Cremona Auditors, which I did audition for a short time (15 minutes). They're very good, but pretty pricey (about 4.5k with stands). However, I don't know how much better they are compared to the VR1s.

 I've also listened to the B&W 805S (2.5k retail, they actual sale price will be cheaper) and those were pretty darn good as well. I can't remember how the Cremona Auditors compared to the 805S, but they both gave me a very enjoyable listen.


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_grill on? I find the sound is congested with grill on and I think Von recommend grill off. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

At first I took them off also but now I find it makes treble response smoother less glare, foam collar is similar to "felting" around tweeter some speakers use, designer specifically placed it there for a reason. 

 Where did you see VSA recommend removing grill for VR1?
 It seems odd they would design a special foam collar into grill cloth and then recommend not using it.

*Also......*
 Another factor besides room placement is type of speaker stand and how you mount VR1s (or any 2 way speaker) to stand....all these things effect the sound of VR1 and may change your mind about them.


----------



## neilvg

I love the sound of my S2's (not new version obviously). I like them with the grilles off (even though they were apparently designed with them on). I recently just put a pair of MBL monoblocks (8011A's) on them and they SING!

 Neil


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sonus Faber Concertino Domus? It'll be less than 2k with stands. Never listened to them before, but seeing that you like the SF sound, the Concertino Domus might appeal to you. I was going to say the Sonus Faber Cremona Auditors, which I did audition for a short time (15 minutes). They're very good, but pretty pricey (about 4.5k with stands). However, I don't know how much better they are compared to the VR1s.

 I've also listened to the B&W 805S (2.5k retail, they actual sale price will be cheaper) and those were pretty darn good as well. I can't remember how the Cremona Auditors compared to the 805S, but they both gave me a very enjoyable listen._

 

yes I do like SF sound, but only from Cremona and up, and even than Cremona isn't near the quality of amati. I just need something to sound great for the next few years until i can get amati, and then its done for the next 20yrs


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_At first I took them off also but now I find it makes treble response smoother less glare, foam collar is similar to "felting" around tweeter some speakers use, designer specifically placed it there for a reason. 

 Where did you see VSA recommend removing grill for VR1?
 It seems odd they would design a special foam collar into grill cloth and then recommend not using it.

*Also......*
 Another factor besides room placement is type of speaker stand and how you mount VR1s (or any 2 way speaker) to stand....all these things effect the sound of VR1 and may change your mind about them._

 

soundstage said von recommend use with grill off, which I have seen in other reviews. I already got the matching stand, which is pretty good. I am not saying VR1 is bad, I just want better 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is that soo much to ask? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I will look into a sub, seeing how that can relieve some of the stress on the midrange.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_yes I do like SF sound, but only from Cremona and up, and even than Cremona isn't near the quality of amati. I just need something to sound great for the next few years until i can get amati, and then its done for the next 20yrs 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 






 I've only heard the Amati Homage (which I've already said was a very nice experience). Apparently the newest version, the Amati Homage _Anniversario_ has a slightly different sound
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll see if I can have a listen. The Amati Homage is quite a lot better than the Cremona, so the Concertino Domus is definitely no match
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Tell me when you do get a pair of Amati Homage Anniversario
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (the name is getting longer
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Soon it'll be Amati Homage Anniversario SE, then Amati Homage Anniversario SE MkII
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 LOL

 To add to your list of possible bookshelves, there's also the Dynaudio Focus 140, which are about $1.8k Again, I haven't heard these, but the reviews are positive. Dynaudio is also a very reputable Danish speaker (well apart from their one-off amplfierse) manufacturer that received a lot of publicity and talk about their Evidence range reference speakers.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_





 I've only heard the Amati Homage (which I've already said was a very nice experience). Apparently the newest version, the Amati Homage Anniversario has a slightly different sound
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'll see if I can have a listen. The Amati Homage is quite a lot better than the Cremona, so the Concertino Domus is definitely no match
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Tell me when you do get a pair of Amati Homage Anniversario
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (the name is getting longer
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Soon it'll be Amati Homage Anniversario SE, then Amati Homage Anniversario SE MkII
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 LOL

 To add to your list of possible bookshelves, there's also the Dynaudio Focus 140, which are about $1.8k Again, I haven't heard these, but the reviews are positive. Dynaudio is also a very reputable Danish speaker (well apart from their one-off amplfierse) manufacturer that received a lot of publicity and talk about their Evidence range reference speakers._

 

Yes I have heard Dynaudio, out of all place in a hi-fi store in Shanghai...with an egotistical owner. Anyway. Love the Dyn, but I find its more of a different sound, very pleasing, but I wouldn't say better. Maybe there isn't that big a difference between all the bookshelves. Well I am going to try 2 things.

 1. try to audiogon a used VSA sub (can always resell if it doesn't work out)
 2. audition the new Paradigm S2 V2, re-audition 805s, Focus 140, 
 2.5 huh, maybe I will try out the Revel F12, seeing all the positive reviews popping up 
 3. don't bother with all and concentrate on school/work until I graduate/sell company and get a new house and go for the top


----------



## Joey_V

Cheese, 

 I love your spunk.

 Make sure to bring the VR1 to your dealer. There is no bigger mistake than to not bring your speakers to the dealer when doing an A/B.... this is the only way to truly size up the speakers and not have to rely on audio memory. 

 Do it right and get your VR1s to the dealer. Put them on the same stands, same amp and A/B them.

 And... let me know what you think of the new Sigs with the Berylliums.

 Joey


----------



## mysticaldodo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*About VSA VR1........*

 These are rear ported (small ambiance port) and need several feet clearance out from speaker wall to sound best, otherwise you will get reduced soundstage and reduced detail. They will sound very good when set up properly and with sympathetic gear (warm side of nuetral)

 You won't believe how much better they sound supported by quality subwoofer. Sound is richer, lower mids fill out, sound stage expands, and of course dynamic range dramatically increases. Same comments apply to any 2 way monitor but especially true for VR1 which I find a bit lean/forward sounding by itself. Also notice that VSA sells a qulaity sub to be used with VR1..........

 VR1 is almost only speaker I have found that actually sounds better with grills on, notice the foam collar around tweeter.......it is there for a reason.

 The whole subject of speaker placement in room is extremely important and will make more difference than almost any equipment upgrade, so do your homework in this area._

 

My experience differs from yours. Pushing the speakers nearer to the rear wall actually made it sound better. It used to be several feet from the rear wall, and always near the side wall (due to room restrictions). I find the bass to be smoother. I could not detect a difference to width or detail. I detected a slight loss of depth at first but I think it placebo because the speakers are visually further away 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 . My room is somewhere in the middle, neither live or dry. 

 The best sound I've heard out of the VR-1 was in the dealer room driven by my pre and power amp 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and with his Unico CDP and power equipment. That room was 3 times bigger then mine with extensive room treatment done. The speakers were several feet apart from the side wall and quite a bit in between (10 feet?). The VR-1 one were situated just in front of the VR4SR which towered over it, less then a feet distance. Is that the same as putting it up againts the rear wall? My listening position was 10 feet away. 
 The sound was really holographic in that room. 

 What exactly does the ambience port accomplish?


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Joey_V* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Cheese, 

 I love your spunk.

 Make sure to bring the VR1 to your dealer. There is no bigger mistake than to not bring your speakers to the dealer when doing an A/B.... this is the only way to truly size up the speakers and not have to rely on audio memory. 

 Do it right and get your VR1s to the dealer. Put them on the same stands, same amp and A/B them.

 And... let me know what you think of the new Sigs with the Berylliums.

 Joey
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

that's a great advise, but I may or may not do that cuz I am just so lazy and it took me 5 hrs to position my spkr.


----------



## milkpowder

Joey_V, that's very good advice! It's doable with book shelves, but not with floor standers. Even small floor standers weigh a ton!

 I wonder what supertweeters do? I was just reading about this guy with Tannoy Westerminster Royals and he uses a super tweeter. The good ones aren't cheap $1k+ and I wonder how they integrate into _any_ system.


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mysticaldodo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What exactly does the ambience port accomplish?_

 

Not really a true port but attempts to radiate soundfield behind speaker for enhanced 3D effect, the VR2 and higher actually have an adjustable volume rear facing speaker to create soundfield behind speaker.......to simulate planar speakers.

 On VSA website VR1 is described as having:
  Quote:


 Not only does this new tweeter sound extremely clean, it is also unusually lush, with a smoothness simply not found in common dome tweeters. If you like ribbon or electrostatic drivers, you will love the VR-1 
 

I will agree that it is vivid and fast sounding treble, but certainly not lush sounding unless your are running very warm gear. 

 I would like to hear the *Paradigm S2* also, looks pretty cool and got good review at Soundstage (as did VR1 previously). I had been toying with idea of swapping VR1 for *ProAc Tablette Reference 8* someday, since I have no British speakers currently.


----------



## mysticaldodo

Have you heard the ProArc? I did consider getting it but settle for the VR-1 instead due to unforseen circumstances, never had a chance to compare both.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mysticaldodo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you heard the ProArc? I did consider getting it but settle for the VR-1 instead due to unforseen circumstances, never had a chance to compare both._

 

heard great things about them. never heard unfortunately. I am also contemplating Harbeth SHL5. 

 I have added some room treatment, and VR1 sounded pretty decent, all the notes are fully flushed out and I get no congested notes and I can listen to it for hours which means I get no over terrible resonate freq. (I usually measure how good spkr initially by how long i can listen to it...lol) 

 The only minus is high freq is a little limiting and the spkr is a little mechanical.


----------



## milkpowder

What's ProArc? Do you mean ProAc?


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mysticaldodo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Have you heard the ProArc? I did consider getting it but settle for the VR-1 instead due to unforseen circumstances, never had a chance to compare both._

 

Have not owned ProAcs but have had Spendors in the past, when I first started audiophile maddness in 1985 I had sweet system with Linn LP12 turntable and Spendor SP1 speakers.

 I would like to buy *used ProAc* 2 way monitor like:
 Tablette 2000
 Tablette Ref 8
 Tablette Ref 8 Sig
 Studio 100

 Also just because they look *too sweet* would like to try used pair of *BW 805 Nautilus* someday, tweeter unit is just too cool. Even if sound is not best it wins beauty contest for me.


----------



## Joey_V

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_that's a great advise, but I may or may not do that cuz I am just so lazy and it took me 5 hrs to position my spkr._

 

DO IT!

 Imagine, it took you 5 hours to position your speaker, are you going to give the S2 5 hours to play with positioning too? It's time to get both speakers in the same room and you get the same play with them.... level playing field. If you got 5h into setting up the VR1, the S2 deserve 5h too. 

 Or the listening session is a complete waste of time. 

 The one way to truly size up the new S2 vs the VR1 is to set them both up on the fly in the same room, equalize both playing fields.

 You're looking to spend over $2K on a new speaker upgrade and you're being lazy? Better just read reviews online and base it on that... the session would be pointless. Basing it on audio memory of the your "ideally" placed/positioned VR1 is a huge handicap for the S2.... your session will be flawed from the getgo. Might as well not go, seriously.

 I'm not trying to be mean or anything, it's just that all you have to do is bring a pair of bookshelves to the store. Mark the floor in your room with tape so you know where the speakers were so it wont take you another 5h to reposition the VR1 after the session.

 You want to be sure about the upgrade? Bring the VR1 and do it right the first time.

 Joey


----------



## milkpowder

Or see if they'll allow a home demo on home turf
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That'd be the best!

 I can sing praises for ProAc speakers for the the next decade because my experience with them have been very enjoyable. They're tremendously balanced speakers and sound pretty incredible. I've never tried their bookshelves, but from how the Response D38 and D80 sounded, it was clear ProAc knew how to build speakers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The D80 are easily as good as the Diva Utopia Be and ProAc speakers represent very good value for money. Little money is spent on aesthetics, which means that most of what you spend goes into the sound.

 The Tablette Reference 8 Signature look great, but they're incredibly difficult to drive. Just look at its sensitivity: 86dB
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Around the same price is the Studio 100 and the Response 1SC.






 Looks like you're spoilt for choice...


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or see if they'll allow a home demo on home turf
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That'd be the best!

 I can sing praises for ProAc speakers for the the next decade because my experience with them have been very enjoyable. They're tremendously balanced speakers and sound pretty incredible. I've never tried their bookshelves, but from how the Response D38 and D80 sounded, it was clear ProAc knew how to build speakers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The D80 are easily as good as the Diva Utopia Be and ProAc speakers represent very good value for money. Little money is spent on aesthetics, which means that most of what you spend goes into the sound._

 

 Maybe I will just have to tread lightly on this one and not make a haste decision since I inferred from the various replies that speaker above VR1 are more listener-taste oriented than pure technical knock-outs.


----------



## mysticaldodo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or see if they'll allow a home demo on home turf
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That'd be the best!

 I can sing praises for ProAc speakers for the the next decade because my experience with them have been very enjoyable. They're tremendously balanced speakers and sound pretty incredible. I've never tried their bookshelves, but from how the Response D38 and D80 sounded, it was clear ProAc knew how to build speakers
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The D80 are easily as good as the Diva Utopia Be and ProAc speakers represent very good value for money. Little money is spent on aesthetics, which means that most of what you spend goes into the sound.

 The Tablette Reference 8 Signature look great, but they're incredibly difficult to drive. Just look at its sensitivity: 86dB
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Around the same price is the Studio 100 and the Response 1SC.






 Looks like you're spoilt for choice..._

 

That was one of the main reasons why I avoided the Tablette 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My amp pumps out a good 40 watts into 8 ohm.

 Add. I also read Stereophile comments in their Components guide 2005 that the Tablette lack resolution or something like that. Not sure whether its the Ref version or not as the mag isn't with me now.


----------



## VicAjax

you've got some great things lined up to audition. but i repeat... you owe it to yourself to try to hear the* DeVore Fidelity*. IMHO, best speaker manufacturer out there ATM.


----------



## chesebert

problem: notes not flushed out, some congested, doesn't sound like HD650!
 fix: placing 2 pillows in front of the speakers

 YES! notes flushed out, very minimal edginess on certain tracks (kind of expected). Violin has the correct timber, and piano doesn't exhibit congested on certain notes. 

 Double checked with HD650 and Dynahi, yup very close, although HD650 is even better at flush all the notes out, a tad smoother, but not as good as speaker on human voice. 

_I feel like turning into Patrick, pillow in front of speaker 30,000 points...LMAO
_, more scientific explanation is probably my carpet (burber) sucks at sound absorption and I am hearing a lot of early reflection.

 its all good. any ppl have idea on how I can add a sub to my system, keeping in mind I have a balanced amp, internally bridged.


----------



## mysticaldodo

What do you mean by pillows in front of the speaker? In the speaker line of sight?

 I use speaker connections to the subwoofer and my VR-1.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mysticaldodo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What do you mean by pillows in front of the speaker? In the speaker line of sight?

 I use speaker connections to the subwoofer and my VR-1._

 

pillow as in throw pillow that was meant for my butt now used to "deflect" early reflection off the already carpeted floor. 

 tell me this doesn't sound patriky


----------



## milkpowder

I'm going to try this pillow tweak when I get back to HK. Do you mind posting a picture of your 'pillow mod'?

 How's your speaker search going? I'm in Canada (Richmond Hill, Toronto) enjoying my uncle's bi-wired, bi-amped Apogee Stage full-range planars
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They have super resolution and terrific soundstage! The bass is pretty good too for a pair of ribbon/planars. Apparently, there's a guy down the road with a pair of Grand Utopia Be
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Scary thought...


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm going to try this pillow tweak when I get back to HK. Do you mind posting a picture of your 'pillow mod'?

 How's your speaker search going? I'm in Canada (Richmond Hill, Toronto) enjoying my uncle's bi-wired, bi-amped Apogee Stage full-range planars
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 They have super resolution and terrific soundstage! The bass is pretty good too for a pair of ribbon/planars. Apparently, there's a guy down the road with a pair of Grand Utopia Be
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Scary thought..._

 

Yes grand utopia is a scary thought. assuming he bought it used for $65,000...LMAO

 Bad news: S2 sound like canned stuff, it sounds like great speaker not instrument. So I was gravely disappointed and now think there is no point doing anything until I can reach the magic $4-6k for monitors and 8-9k for floor standers. 

 Good news: I did find I really enjoy a sub-bass woofer. I tried some REL B1, and B3 and I can honestly say I really really miss the sub bass information. I was using that with some Vienna Acoustic (full range) and I find even full range can use couple of great sub bass woofers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Vienna Acoustics sounds very musical, but lack transparency, which is a no no for me. driven by all Linn stack. 

 So for my small space, maybe I just need a great sub-woofer, to have that solid foundation where all the other notes can build upon. 

 I don't know if it was the speaker or me, but the CDP I used was Rega Saturn. The CDP didn't do anything for me. I don't find my inexpensive Eastsound E3 is lacking in comparison to Saturn (this could be due to speaker/amp combo, you know the feeling: all the elements are there, but it doesn't sound real)

 Oh well, I am out of town next week, and will probably visit few more stores in the Detroit area after Xmas (not like I can actually afford what I want...LOL)


----------



## mysticaldodo

What exactly do you mean by canned stuff? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My only experience with Vienna Acoustics was the Haydn Grand with some cheap tube amplification driven by the latest Cary cdp (the silver one, no idea about the model). The soundstage was wider then the VR-1 but it sounded dry and boring.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mysticaldodo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What exactly do you mean by canned stuff? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 My only experience with Vienna Acoustics was the Haydn Grand with some cheap tube amplification driven by the latest Cary cdp (the silver one, no idea about the model). The soundstage was wider then the VR-1 but it sounded dry and boring._

 

canned meaning it sounded like what you expect a speaker to sound like
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (great description I know....LMAO). The high was great, the mid was not transparent, and bass was excellent. I guess I just don't like their house sound. The instrument just do not have presence...yes that's the word I am looking for presence (you know a good SET amp give you that presence..same kind of feeling)

 Yes Vienna can be a little boring, but its easy listening and to I guess its musical, if the spker tend to relegate itself to a more background music. But again not transparent. Why can't they build a speaker like the HD650, musical, yet extremely transparent. full bodied yet, well extended with airy top end. WT@#$ does it take so much $$$$$ to get there?


----------



## DarkAngel

In my experience you will have hard time finding monitor with more clear detailed vivid treble/mids than VR1, but this can be too much if your gear is not on warm side to balance out sound, therefore I repeat:

  Quote:


 You won't believe how much better they sound supported by quality subwoofer. Sound is richer, lower mids fill out, sound stage expands, and of course dynamic range dramatically increases. Same comments apply to any 2 way monitor but especially true for VR1 which I find a bit lean/forward sounding by itself. Also notice that VSA sells a qulaity sub to be used with VR1.......... 
 

My Tyler Taylo monitors have warmer richer presentation and sound more balanced natural than VR1 without using sub in system for instance..........if I didn't have sub I would have sold VR1 long ago. 

 Also just to clarify in Soundstage VR1 review VSA did not say remove grill, that was reviewers opinion and I suspect he did not seriously try listening with grill in place......I still maintain grill foam collar design evens out treble response for smoother more balanced presentation.


----------



## mysticaldodo

Interestingly enough, the Grand Haydn is also designed to work with the grilles on. There's some sort of fin like shape structure in the grill, though I forgotten how it is suppose to affect the treble. During my audition, I clearly prefer it sans grill and the dealer prefers it with the grill on. I guess our sensitivity to treble is different


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_In my experience you will have hard time finding monitor with more clear detailed vivid treble/mids than VR1, but this can be too much if your gear is not on warm side to balance out sound, therefore I repeat:



 My Tyler Taylo monitors have warmer richer presentation and sound more balanced natural than VR1 without using sub in system for instance..........if I didn't have sub I would have sold VR1 long ago. 

 Also just to clarify in Soundstage VR1 review VSA did not say remove grill, that was reviewers opinion and I suspect he did not seriously try listening with grill in place......I still maintain grill foam collar design evens out treble response for smoother more balanced presentation._

 

I repeat. I agree with you 100% have had REL B3 in home test, I really want a nice sub. Since there are so many to choose from the REL is so damn expensive (Does it make sense to spend 2x as much on the sub as the main spkr? ....I didn't think so) any good recommendations?


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I repeat. I agree with you 100% have had REL B3 in home test, I really want a nice sub. Since there are so many to choose from the REL is so damn expensive (Does it make sense to spend 2x as much on the sub as the main spkr? ....I didn't think so) any good recommendations?_

 

The one cheap sub that still would sound good enough for good audio system use is HSU VTF mkII......previous vesrsion was highly rated everywhere and has flexible connection otions.
HSU


----------



## music_man

i am intrested in what the gma callisto' cabinet is made out of. they don't say anything about it. i suppose it is secret technology.

 the deftech promonitor1000 is a surprisingly good speaker for $400(pr). also made from polymer resins. it is imho by far their best speaker since i would not even normally consider them. you must have the grill off of those. don't judge them with the grill on. the reason i am mentioning them here is because they can sometimes compete with speakers twice+ their price. i didn't believe it either knowing that company. it's worth a listen.

 rel subs are really what they say they are. "sub bass systems".
 in my bedroom i have the q150e with jmlab/focal micro utopia be and they sound literally like big floor standers. i have challanged many to judge the xover point and no one has come even close(besides honest guessing). it integrates more seamlessly than any sub i have witnessed. for the same price i had a sunfire truesub jr. and it was the typical "boombox". not what audiophiles are looking for. good for movies maybe. of course that is the other side of the coin with the rel. it's movie "slam" is just not present. i don't care personally. the rel is a natural extension of the speakers. it is not an "add-on" like almost any other sub. in case anyone didn't know it must be connected via the hi-level speaker posts and not rca. it uses a speakon.

 i understand that my focals are more money than what the op wanted. i also realise that taste in fine loudspeakers is highly personal. i know some will not hesitate to attack my little focals. i personally find them to take shoebox size speakers to another planet. i used to have the concertinos. to me these blow them away. of course this is a big ymmv.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

i just took the time to read this entire thread.

 i see someone is listening to apogees! well at least someone else knows what i am talking about. i think there has never been any other speaker made like those. i got mine used and cheap. you probably could too if you have the room.

 i wouldn't honestly expect much from anything from paradigm. mass market stuff. not audiophile niche. the river runs downstream better than upstream imho. ie, the vr1 is looking up to the vr11 and the s2 v2 is looking down at the atom. different market placement. of course i am one to say their anthem is not so much better than a good yamaha. thats just me.

 i noticed now that the s2 has a beryllium tweeter. maybe you would want to try a focal that is not a utopia(save money)?

 i also want to mention something pretty amazing. you noticed i went on about the deftech's above. well now that i read this whole post i can say exactly what i meant when i said they will go against speakers 2+ times their price.

 magnolia(at every location) has the promonitor1000's next to the haydn's. to put it lightly, this is not working to their advantage! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that does not mean that the haydn is good either imho. it does speak volumes about those little deftech's though.

 music_man


----------



## DarkAngel

*MM*
 GMA does not disclose exactly what cast cabinets are made of but it is a cast resin process like Corian sinks/countertops etc that they call *Q Stone*. Various finely ground materials are added to resin to acheive desired final product which for GMA is very inert vibration free speaker cabinet.


----------



## music_man

that is what i figured. the deftechs are corian by another name more or less. that might be why the little deftechs sound like expensive speakers. they also have different drivers than the other deftechs and a better(more rigid) medite radiator.

 i originally thought they were "plastic" to be made cheaply. according to the manufacturer they put more r&d into those than they ever have on any other product. that might explain the way they sound.

 go into a magnolia and have them put them on with a rel sub and compare them to the haydn's. i hope someone does this and reports back here. i was pretty surprised. i guess that resin may be superior to mdf.

 i want to hear the gma's now. what do the callistos cost per pair?
 i am guessing they are a lot better than the deftechs even though they can compete with the haydn's(imho,again).

 edit: i just saw the callistos are $2,295 a pair. they are fairly large and not very pretty. of course that all has nothing to do with their sound.

 music_man


----------



## mysticaldodo

I did a reassessment again. I find that the treble actually sounds better now with the grill back on. It has been a long time since I decided to permanently take the grill off so I never really compared. My setup has changed since then though. The treble sounds more organic and natural on bright recordings from both my vinyl and cd source. 

 Have also position my speakers (together with my subwoofer) 2 feet from the rear (used to be 1 feet). It does make some recordings sound congested previously. Now I can hear more into the mix clearly. I'm also having the speakers face forward now and further away from the front wall. I find that the width is same when a) speakers nearer the wall but toe in b) speakers further from the wall but pointing straight on.


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mysticaldodo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I did a reassessment again. I find that the treble actually sounds better now with the grill back on. It has been a long time since I decided to permanently take the grill off so I never really compared. My setup has changed since then though. The treble sounds more organic and natural on bright recordings from both my vinyl and cd source. 

 Have also position my speakers (together with my subwoofer) 2 feet from the rear (used to be 1 feet). It does make some recordings sound congested previously. Now I can hear more into the mix clearly. I'm also having the speakers face forward now and further away from the front wall. I find that the width is same when a) speakers nearer the wall but toe in b) speakers further from the wall but pointing straight on._

 

Speaker positioning in room is major factor in sound for sure, we need Chesebert now to get those VR1 grills back on 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 For reference I place my speakers @4ft out from wall, 6ft apart and sit back 7ft from speakers with mild toe in

 Also try experimenting with placing various items between VR1 speaker bottom and stand top........most people blindly use blue tack or spikes includes with stand, but there are other options!

 Some people like to use soft footers like Herbies Lab products *Big Black Dot* especially on VSA two piece speakers between bass cabinet and HF cabinet.
Herbies

 Some will dismiss this as silly idea, but it is not and gives a richer warmer sound to speaker while still keeping fine detail. You can get a rough idea of the effect by using vibrapods but they tend to be too soft and too warm sounding.........


----------



## mysticaldodo

I've heard good things about the Herbies. If memory serves correct, there's this one Cambridge 840C owner who said changing the footers to Herbies made it sound like the Rega Saturn (the 840C is more analytical in comparison).

 I too made a mistake of blindly putting cones under my VR-1. It was a set of stick on cones which came with the VR-1. I'm afraid that if I pull it out, the finish will be damaged. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 You mention 4 feet from the wall. Equal distance from both rear and side wall? The VR manual said not to do that as it will accentuate the mid bass.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *mysticaldodo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I've heard good things about the Herbies. If memory serves correct, there's this one Cambridge 840C owner who said changing the footers to Herbies made it sound like the Rega Saturn (the 840C is more analytical in comparison).

 I too made a mistake of blindly putting cones under my VR-1. It was a set of stick on cones which came with the VR-1. I'm afraid that if I pull it out, the finish will be damaged. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

what do you mean by "mistake" I also have the cones under the VR1, per instruction. I even called Von and they said to put it there. did I do something wrong?

 will try Grill on later...little tired from my SFO vacation


----------



## mysticaldodo

Yeah, by sticking on the cones and not risking damage to the finish, I would not be able to experiment with footers.


----------



## plaidplatypus

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_edit: i just saw the callistos are $2,295 a pair. they are fairly large and not very pretty. of course that all has nothing to do with their sound.

 music_man_

 

Price Check aisle 4


----------



## music_man

i was looking at a review from 2002 i think where i got that price. are they sold direct only? if not i'd bet places discount them which is where that price comes from. either that or the fact it is a 5 year old price quote 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it doesn't matter to me anyhow. i am probably not buying those.

 music_man


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_what do you mean by "mistake" I also have the cones under the VR1, per instruction. I even called Von and they said to put it there. did I do something wrong?
 will try Grill on later...little tired from my SFO vacation 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Try those Herbies "black dots" under VR1 and get rid of those cones.......I use the 1" size and sound is much more natural than cones, forget what VSA tells you and try things that many others in real world are using sucessfully.

 Herbies is super fast delivery after purchase!


----------



## music_man

i guess i am not surprised no one took me seriously about those little deftechs.

 if your space constraints are that small they really are pretty amazing. with a sub of course. i might buy a pair.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

I don't think anyone in this thread is in the market for speakers, anymore, since chesebert seems satisfied with his new vr-1 placement.

 Thanks for the recommendation - I, on the other hand, might consider picking up a pair next year if I can hear it first. Unfortunately, i don't have Magnolia near me. I like the solid cabinet, and the woofer looks interesting. Passive radiator is a plus in my book, if done right.


----------



## music_man

i think you would be pleasently surprised. of course tastes vary.

 on the other hand chesebert made the right decision. the paradigms are not an upgrade from vr1's imho.

 music_man


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also try experimenting with placing various items between VR1 speaker bottom and stand top........most people blindly use blue tack or spikes includes with stand, but there are other options!

 Some people like to use soft footers like Herbies Lab products *Big Black Dot* especially on VSA two piece speakers between bass cabinet and HF cabinet.
Herbies

 Some will dismiss this as silly idea, but it is not and gives a richer warmer sound to speaker while still keeping fine detail. You can get a rough idea of the effect by using *vibrapods* but they tend to be too soft and too warm sounding........._

 

*CB*
 I have tried vibrapods under speakers for many years, but they can be too compliant and you may loose fine detail and sound become overly warm, easy to try yourself andsee. As I said I like the Herbies Black Dots which is 1/2 way between vibrapods and spikes soundwise.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i think you would be pleasently surprised. of course tastes vary.

 on the other hand chesebert made the right decision. the paradigms are not an upgrade from vr1's imho.

 music_man_

 

Yes but Harbeth SHL5 is def an huge upgrade from VR-1. It is one of the best spker I have ever heard under $10k. I plan to take a pair home for demo during the summer vacation.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *DarkAngel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*CB*
 I have tried vibrapods under speakers for many years, but they can be too compliant and you may loose fine detail and sound become overly warm, easy to try yourself andsee. As I said I like the Herbies Black Dots which is 1/2 way between vibrapods and spikes soundwise._

 

how many dots do you place under each spker?


----------



## DarkAngel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_how many dots do you place under each spker?_

 

I use 4 of the 1" size........you should try the vibrapods perhaps they will work fine for you, or like me you can get both


----------



## music_man

i am intrested to hear this: http://sumikoaudio.net/sonus/prod_guarneri_memento.htm

 it could maybe a huge upgrade to my micro utopias. on the other hand as always speaker sound is highly subjective. just because they are twice the price of my jmlab's doesnt mean i'd be guaranteed to like them better of course. once i hear them i'll let you guys know(what i think).

 well, one thing i think already is they are some darn expensive little speakers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 they'd have to compete with reference floorstanders for that kind of cash imho.

 music_man


----------



## DarkAngel

*MM*
 You must have deep pockets for 13k set of speakers........sure look nice


----------



## ooheadsoo

But it's hard to think of what could justify it's price. First order xover - doesn't get simpler than that, like, 2 to 3 components on each driver at most, and while you can theoretically maintain phase coherence (but you have to choose whether it is electric phase or acoustic phase you are shooting for) you also have to live with lumpy off axis frequency response. Granted some people can live with the frequency response issues, though. Finish on the cabinet affecting the sound? I sure hope the walls of those cabinets aren't resonating like a violin. 

 Well, I've always been mystified by sonus faber. Nice looking, I agree. The models I've heard have VERY soft and mellow sound. Could be very good for simply enjoying music.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Could be very good for simply enjoying music._

 

I think that's what they are designed for. ie listening to music rather than random noises. 

 You are right they are a bit over the top, but they are the best looking.


----------



## ooheadsoo

There're lots of ways to listen to and enjoy music, and not everyone desires or demands accuracy. Looks are also very subjective. The sonus fabers look fantastic, but the looks also betray fairly conventional engineering and design. Well, whatever. Not my personal choice, although I'd be very happy to receive a pair as a gift so that I could sell them and buy what I really wanted. I could buy a car with the change left over, too, if I compromised just a little. Not even a whole lot of compromise, just a little bit 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This would be my compromise of choice: http://www.nuforce.com/partner/Broch...ure-lowres.pdf

 Sounds quite nice, I was quite floored when I heard them. And worth the money, too, I couldn't diy this cabinet.


----------



## milkpowder

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i am intrested to hear this: http://sumikoaudio.net/sonus/prod_guarneri_memento.htm

 it could maybe a huge upgrade to my micro utopias. on the other hand as always speaker sound is highly subjective. just because they are twice the price of my jmlab's doesnt mean i'd be guaranteed to like them better of course. once i hear them i'll let you guys know(what i think).

 well, one thing i think already is they are some darn expensive little speakers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 they'd have to compete with reference floorstanders for that kind of cash imho.

 music_man_

 

Around the same price are the L&R Utopia Be. I highly recommend them. They have a very similar sound to the Diva Utopia Be, if not a slightly bassier. Are your Micro Utopia the newer Be ones? If not, please go and listen to the new Utopia Be range! They're spectacular. Around the price of the Micro Utopia Be are the Dynaudio Confidence C1, which have very positive reviews too. I haven't heard the Guarneris, but judging from the Cremona Auditor, Cremona and Amati Anniv., the Guarneri must be good!


----------



## music_man

i have the micro utopia be's. i traded sf concertino's to get them. i wonder where higher end sf's would have taken me. i'll hopefully find out soon.

 i think what makes them expensive is the cabinet. the craftsmanship is painstaking and exquisite. i do not know if that translates to better sound untill i hear them. on the other hand the focals(even with the avant garde finish) cabinets are rather basic. they do sound outstanding for shoebox sized speakers, don't get me wrong. i wouldn't doubt there is always better.

 i say why not take shoebox sized speakers to reference levels. if it can be done. then the price should be commensurate with the best floorstanding reference loudspeakers.

 a lot of people that are in the market for reference loudspeakers would appreciate the space saving if they could equal their bigger brothers/sisters.

 if the micro utopia sounded the same as the grand utopia i'd take the micro utopia. i still had to take the micro's because i had no choice in this room. what if it sounded as good as the grand utopia though? then it probably would/should cost as much!

 i know shoebox size speakers are very limited at some point. simple physics.
 it will be intresting to see why sf is asking for that type of money other than looks. i will say the concertinos were very good. the focals are better.

 about the money: there are people(here) that have 5.1 eggleston. so there are perspectives. although, with the eggleston it is obvious why they cost what they do. with the sf guarneri i am not so sure other than looks. in all honesty i would not care if my equipment looked like it went through a warzone. i care about the sound. that is why i regularly purchase scratch 'n dent and refurbished items. they work fine thats all that matters to me.

 music_man


----------



## milkpowder

_Please_ report back when you've heard the Guarneris! Will you be comparing the Guarneris with anything else at the audition? It'd be interesting to compare the Guarneris to the cheaper Cremonas and the more expensive Amatis.


----------



## music_man

i will have to see what store has what. it will probably be a little while before i find a place that has enough stuff for comparison.

 they would have to be a lot better than the utopia be's for me to consider them. if they were just a little better, you know diminishing gains aren't that appealing to me. the micro utopia's already push the limit of what can be done with such small boxes. with a rel sub they really are pretty impressive actually.

 the Amatis are larger speakers, aren't they? the point for me is to get the highest performing speakers that are considered "bookshelfs". of course different people have different ideas of what fits on a bookshelf 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 by that token i really don't even know how the sf's would perform off of their stands. so what i hear at the store may not even be indicative of what they would do in my room. plus i'd really have to be selling those stands if i was not using them. that is fine as long as there was a buyer for them.
 i'd say $1,000 or more of the money in those speakers is their stands.
 it is kind of a shame not to be able to use them. most stores offer in home auditions for gear at that level. i like to go to the store first so as not to waste their time unless i am very serious. that is only fair.

 music_man


----------



## milkpowder

Again, if you liked the sound of the Micro Utopia Be, I urge you go go and listen to the L & R Utopia Be. They are seriously good speakers. I'd call them large "bookshelfs" because they're almost as large as a pair of slim floorstanders (a bit like the Marten Design Alto in size). You're "book shelf" really has to be quite big to fit them
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 However, how big is your room? The L & R Utopia Be require a fairly big room. What's putting you off from a pair of slim floorstanders? They don't take up that much room and will sound better than even large bookshelfs. (that sounded funny LOL)


----------



## chesebert

I measured my VR1 in-room response (C-weighted) and need to know if there are anything I can do to tame the nasty 8-10khz aberration?






 make a note: the graph makes it look like I started my measurement at 30Hz. but the 1st data point is at 25Hz. 

 THANKS!!!!!


----------



## chesebert

I thought I fixed the problem but I still have the treble elevation


----------



## music_man

unfortunately i am dealing with space constraints due to furniture. i cannot unfurnish this room simply for the pleasure of listening to music.

 luckily i have another room for that(i think i mentioned that already in this thread). this "little" system tends to be the one that gets the most attention from me these days. so i'd like it to be somewhat decent.. 

 the speakers are 16' apart on a dresser/table. so as not to jam the speakers to the wall i am realistically limited to 24"x18"x20"(h+w+d). this room is easily big enough for floorstanders, but not with all the furniture in here.

 the utopia be's are very forgiving of awful acoustics and way less than ideal placement. this room has very bad acoustics due to furnishings and odd shaped walls and ceiling. it is almost a joke. a teddy bear sits atop one speaker. i try to remove him when listening lol. the cdp which is maybe 10" tall is on the same table 10" from the other speaker. i am not an idiot, but i would still rather have good equipment with rotten placement than rotten equipment with rotten placement 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 the sonus fabers may very well need to be on their stands and have some space around them. in this area the utopia's have excelled. the utopias also work very well with the little rel sub. it sounds very good all considered.

 i may not get any benefit in this room from better speakers but that will not stop me from trying. larger speakers are just out of the question in here.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I thought I fixed the problem but I still have the treble elevation_

 

gikacoustics has the most inexpensive fiberglass based traps I've seen. You could snag a set to tame some of the reflections in your room, but it might be useless if it's a furniture placement problem.

 If you don't have a height constraint to your "bookshelf" problem, I'd recommend seeing what you can do to hear the nuforce s-9. It's quite the dynamic performer but never sounded harsh with any of the recordings I heard it with. I can say wholeheartedly that they play like speakers 5 times their size, if not more. Very clean and neutral. I think there's a review in the upcoming feb issue of TAS, but I haven't seen it yet.

 I'm also extremely confident that a heck of a lot of more intensive labor and craftsmanship (and expertise) goes into the making of a $13k violin than goes into the making of a $13k sonus faber. While I haven't heard the micro utopia bes or the sonus faber in question, I still make music about 2 times a week, and the nuforce s-9 comes closer (for me) to making real music than does the single sonus faber I remember hearing most recently (I think it was the cremona.) Actually, it's not very close. It's a different sound signature. It sounds like I'm actually talking myself into saving up for a pair of s-9s, which won't be any time soon. Oh well, allow me to bow out of this thread somewhat gracefully.


----------



## music_man

those s9's look really nice. i will see about hearing those. they are a lot less money than the sf's too. i am already thinking the sf's are overpriced and i havent even heard them yet. i'll find out soon.

 i don't have a height restriction. proportion comes into consideration when factoring speakers as part of furniture. they would block the light switches on both sides and generally look too big.

 i am sure you all know that this is not solely myself making the "furniture" decision. if it was entirely up to me i'd only care about the sound. anyways, i'm not going there.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

the s-9's look nice on the web. i have come to learn that one can not judge the cosmetic and structural quality of a product by online photos. 

 i see their amps. i am not a big fan of that technology. i know that this amp technology can sound pretty good. i think they are pushing the price envelope for that technology however. their topology is intresting. especially the usage of multiple small value capacitors. the size is really appealing.

 nuforce are not the actual designers of these speakers. they mention that.

 sonus faber is a very high end cabinet/enclosure maker. besides the beauty, the cabinet integrity and rigidity does play a role. i would be very surprised if nuforce offer that type of woodwork. i am intrested to find out. 

 the nuforce speakers seem like they may be a better value than their amps. i could be entirely wrong about the amps. maybe they are a good value also.

 does anyone know in which country the s-9 and nuforce amps are assembled? that is of (some) intrest to me.

 a lot of higher end small speakers have been mentioned in this thread. i will listen to some of them. i will start with the guarneri's. the micro utopia be's/rel sub are doing an admirable job. especially given the room issues. i could stop there but you all know how this goes. i may indeed only do worse with better speakers since they tend to get more picky about placement and reflection as the prices increase.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

The s-9 is completely built and finished in the US. By a handful of guys in Indiana. I dunno about the amps. I can tell you that they sounded mighty fine when paired with the S-9, but for me, that's neither here nor there. The speakers are not made or designed by nuforce, although they had a strong hand in the direction that the engineering would take. They look quite good in person, but the finish is very different from a high end violin finish. IMO, a good violin finish should be very fine, enabling the wood to show itself off. The s-9 has a catalyzed clear coat for long life. Very striking, though. The pictures are pretty true to life. 

 If, as you say, sonus faber is interested in the rigidity of the cabinet, What are they talking about regarding the finish affecting the sound of the speaker? I should hope not. End grain cut bamboo is supposed to be extremely rigid, and if you see the pdf that I linked in an earlier post, and the picture of the internal chambers, you can see that it has bracing inherently built in. The designer, whom I've spoken to says that it's his best imaging speaker, and his theory is that it's because it's actually more rigid than the constrained damping cabinets he normally builds. I built a cabinet using half assed constrained damping and it's quite rigid indeed. No surprise it's commonly used in civil engineering when damping is called for. The s-9 cabinet is significantly more damped to my knuckle test.


----------



## chesebert

Is VR-1 really THE speaker for Grado fans? (Top is my vr1 in-room response and bottom is RS1 FR from headroom)


----------



## music_man

i am really surprised. i was expecting china. they are looking good to me now. no offense to the chinese. i just don't like us companies capitalizing on their labor costs and producing an inferior product designed to make them lots of money. apparently that is not the case at all with nuforce.

 who actually makes these speakers? if it is not supposed to be a secret i'd like to know.

 the pdf does look like a lot goes into them. i will see if i can hear them. sonus faber is spending a whole lot of time on the finish and that runs the cost way up. i don't really need to pay for how they look. i figured the s-9's were going to be made on a table saw jig and look like slop. i guess i was pretty wrong about that. if the cabinet is good i really don't care how much time they spent making it look pretty.

 the sonus is an intresting shape though. some companies are doing shapes like that to deal with reflections and standing waves. if the s-9's are a lot better than the utopia be's i would get them right away. i can sell the utopia's and not be that bad off money wise. the price of the sf's would have to make them just blow me away. which i doubt they can do given their size.
 i'll just to have to go listen.

 nuforces amps also look promising. i just didn't really want to admit i thought that for some reason. the specs are not amazing. i'll have to hear those also. i like the size of them. they look well built. it all depends on the sound. since the larger companies have a lot more "guts" in their amps they look like more value than the nuforce. i know that does not mean anything. this topology is rather simple. which may be a good thing. i just hope it is not simply a souped up tripath design for $2,500+. from what i have learned about nuforce now i doubt that is the case. the strange thing is onkyo's amp with similar technology is physically 6 times the size of the nuforce. i have no idea why. this type of amp can be made in a nice small package.

 i guess the s-9's would be good with the same companies amp. so if i do them, maybe out with the krell also.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

The s-9 speakers are made by SP Technology. They're small and hooked up with nuforce to get more exposure. Nuforce has asian minds behind them (based in the US,) but I honestly don't know where their amps are manufactured. I have read from someone who seems trustworthy (recording engineer who makes great recordings) that the nuforce amps didn't have enough juice for one of SP Tech's 8ohm load speakers when pushed to live levels, keeping in mind that the nuforce amps are optimized for 4ohms, and that the designer of the speaker has happily pushed those speakers to clipping with a 1000w reference amp playing hard rock before the woofer voice coils threatened to melt. He didn't want to switch up to one of SP Tech's more expensive 4ohm speakers because he didn't want to mess with success. The sound was right, he just wanted more juice to get to live levels because the amp was pooping out. I wouldn't consider using a nuforce amp with the s-9 as critical - although, IMO, they didn't do anything wrong when I heard them paired together (the s-9 is a 4ohm speaker.)

 As with all things audio, take what i'm saying with a few handfuls of salt. I liked them, my preference is for live sound, and it has to measure well for heaven's sake, as a starting point. I currently use a 8" mtm diy kit I built from SP Tech. They're much too big for my room.


----------



## music_man

i attempted to audition the nuforce's to no avail. mostly due to my own issues.

 i should have read the pdf the first time you linked it. it answered all my questions.

 the construction of the s-9 is what i really like to see in a wood speaker.
 quite similar to the sonus fabers. maybe even better. as it is ply birch and not solid. the sf's are maple which is more stable and dense so it does not really have to be a ply. birch is very soft, hence the ply. still a very good design i think. the front baffle looks especially nice. even the vons are just veneered.
 i think the "staved" construction is far superior. not entirely sound wise, but the cabinet is a big part of the speaker as a whole.

 as for how well they excute this woodworking i may not soon find out.
 doing this type of woodworking takes very high skill. with sonus you know what to expect.

 therein lies a problem for me regarding nuforce. i was very taken aback by their distribution channels. they make it, in my opinion rather hard to auditon their speakers. some people may find their private auditions and in home trials etc. very appealing. i do not. i like to be able to walk unanounced into a retail showroom and listen to $200,000 speakers if i so wish. that is just me. i know many people would be pleased with the different channels nuforce uses.

 i honestly think this is because they are too small of a company to get into showrooms. the channels that carry nuforce seem also to have other lines that are a step away from "homebrew". again, with sonus i know what i'd be getting. the nuforce may indeed be great but their is still some gamble involved. they are not "inexpensive". warranty etc. comes to mind. sf will be here tomorrow(probably). especially with "staved" cabinet construction. the woods stability to environmental conditions can come into play years down the road. this is one big reason mdf is the common practice in speaker making.

 it really is a shame i will not be hearing them soon. maybe i really would have liked them. if i go to indiana in a while i will see if sp can demo them.

 as for the sonus: i will be hearing them within days. i have been told though that i personally probably will not like them. they are said to be amazing. for the reasons people like vinyl and tubes. i like my music "clinical" and "steril". completely true to the recording, unadulterated. i am told the sf's tend to make everything seem pretty. like a fine landscape artist. maybe that is their violin heritage.

 my focals are razor sharp and very precise. they do not really impart a warm fuzzy flavor to music at all. the sf's i am told do. so i will see at least.

 the sf's are a lot better built than most all speakers cabinet wise. of course as i say time and again it is the sound that matters. if they made it out of toilet paper and it sounded great i wouldn't really care. on the other hand if it looks like mona lisa and sounds less than to my liking i will care!

 i could really use larger speakers in this room but i do not have room for them. with the rel sub, small speakers of this caliber do put out a large amount of sound thankfully. as you go up a given line in size, the speakers tend to present a larger soundstage and more information. i am strapped with a size limitation in here however. i could be doing a lot worse. so i am not unhappy in the least.

 does anyone else have recommendations for reference class speakers within the size constraints i mentioned earlier? that are available at retail outlets.

 i am mostly happy with the micro utopia be's but i do not mind looking at other options for myself and to report to all of you here. i do think it is not fair to go to formal auditions(or in home) unless one really plans on buying ahead of time. as a gentleman i simply cannot do that to people. i would maybe buy, but on the other hand i am sort of window shopping at this point. already being rather content with the focals and rel.


 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

I probably should have mentioned that nuforce is going out of their way to NOT market the S-9 in the US at this moment because their manufacturing capability of it is not yet up to speed. They know where they have to get before they start pushing the speaker. I'm surprised the review in TAS is slated for feb, that's going to generate some serious interest.

 My experience with sf speakers also tells me that they're going to be rolled off on the highs like crazy. 

 I know what you're saying about in home auditions. However, sometimes there are group events, that's how I got to hear the s-9. Looks like you have the luxury to give it some time, anyway. I think by RMAF this year, they'll have the manufacturing gig ramped up...I hope.

 The other problem is that I don't really put too much stock in hearing speakers outside of my room. My room is terrible, but I know what it sounds like. It's my #1 limiting factor. It doesn't really even matter how great a speaker sounds in some other room if it can't sound like that in my room. In a strange room, it's impossible to judge how much of what you hear is the setup and how it would sound in your room. I'd also like quick A/B comparison with my own speakers. I'm one of those on this forum who actually believe in the scientific findings that people's detailed aural memory don't last beyond a few seconds. I guess that actually does lead back to in home audition, huh...

 On a self congratulatory side note, I'm happy to say that I have an online friend who used to have a big Oris horn system but sold it when he moved to a NY apartment. I suggested the S-9 to him since it had impressed me so much with its huge sound coming from an unexpectedly svelte package, and I know he read the comments of others at that s-9 unveiling I attended. He bought that demo speaker sound unheard and from what he has told me, he seems quite pleased.


----------



## music_man

i heard the mementos. i really liked them, but i don't really know why.

 this is of course as always subjective. i, as many people would have went into this already prejudiced by their price to size ratio. i am not afraid of expensive speakers but these are pushing it for their size. so i had it in the back of my head that i must not like them. 

 about the looks if anyone cares: i can say with certainty that the sound emitted from these little gems will not be for everyone. on the other hand the looks should be somewhat universally coveted. they are art to behold. sf does make a point of stating that this has a huge bearing on their sound as well. i suppose it does. other speakers fall way short of this type of craftsmanship. my wilsons should go hide their heads in the sand. they look ugly to me right now. at least they still sound good(to me at least).

 as it turns out, i can hear the s-9's in a showroom(had to search a little harder for a dealer). if someone is coming from oris and likes these they are probably not for me. i am not really looking for live sound out of loudspeakers. especially not live sound pressure levels. what i wish for in all of my playback equipment is to be true to the recording. the mementos are not true to a recording. they make everything sound pretty as i had been told. i never liked this sort of loudspeaker(or headphone) untill i just heard these.

 so i don't really know myself at this point what it is i liked so much about the mementos. sort of magical to me(the price, the wood). i'll have to think about it. if i am to seriously consider them i will listen again. they may not do justice to all(or most) of my music in fact. like an idiot of sorts i brought music that i figured would make them shine. really, i should have done the opposite. at this point i am not sure i have an accurate representation of the mementos sound across a broad range of music to begin with. nonetheless, their craftsmanship should stand the test of time(if that matters any).

 at the moment i am on the fence. meanwhile my utopias are still keeping me happy. they are completely different than the momentos. i think the huge price difference lies in the cabinetry and not the drivers/electronics. the utopias are still high end speakers i think. it mainly depends on taste at this level(as you all should know). not price so much beyond a certain point i'd guess.

 the deal breaker for me is probably going to be the mementos dependance on their integral stands. they are not really bookshelf speakers. they must be thought of as floorstanders. i have been told putting them on a table will not allow them to produce anywhere near the level of sound quality they are capable of. add to this pretty poor room acoustics and they are probably not an option for this room. that is if i even really would like them so much upon further and extended critical listening. i think i will rest on making such a decision for some time at this point.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_as it turns out, i can hear the s-9's in a showroom(had to search a little harder for a dealer). if someone is coming from oris and likes these they are probably not for me. i am not really looking for live sound out of loudspeakers. especially not live sound pressure levels. what i wish for in all of my playback equipment is to be true to the recording. the mementos are not true to a recording. they make everything sound pretty as i had been told. i never liked this sort of loudspeaker(or headphone) untill i just heard these.

 music_man_

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean there. The s-9 speakers measure flat (criteria #1) in frequency response and power response. They don't play what's not on the recording. And, imho, unless the music was generated by a computer, it was recorded "live." I don't mean live in the sense of 4 guys with long frazzled hair banging on their instruments through the 50x18" woofer array live. Live, as in "facsimily of musicians playing the instruments" live. And, in the end, it should also be able to throw a wall of sound - if it's on the recording. Many speakers simply fall short of this. I don't mean to say that that is all that this speaker is good at doing. I was simply pointing out to you that this is the biggest sound I have ever heard in such a small package - capable of reproducing the sound of live instruments. I haven't actually heard them with any of my typical "wall of sound" test tracks. It did a great solo grand piano and a big band when I heard them. This is not that easy to come by, especially from "bookshelf" size speakers. They are also extraordinarily detailed, which I believe comes from the reduction of strain and distortion from the bottom end of the tweeter by the acoustic loading of the waveguide. 

 I'm glad you like the sf speakers. They must be something special for that price. I still don't buy a stinking word about their speaker finish affecting the sound spiel. Not one. A speaker cabinet should be doing the exact opposite of what a violin body does. One resonates, the other should do everything within reason not to. To say that their finish affects the sound of the speaker is tantamount to saying that their cabinets are big resonant boxes. Of course, we know that their cabs aren't big slop boxes, so I have no choice but to believe that their marketing dept is lying through its teeth. That doesn't mean that the speaker doesn't sound good.

 But I haven't heard either the utopias or the mementos, so take all of what I'm saying with a few handfuls of salt, of course.

 btw, what kind of music do you typically listen to?


----------



## music_man

(edit: after i just typed all of this i see you already answered all these questions in the above post. i do not know why i didn't realise that the first time i read it. i'll leave this post as is for integrity. anyhow (ooheadsoo) we seem to be on the same page in regard to what we expect of playback equiment. also in respect to what we consider the word "live" to mean as it applies to the playing of music. therefore i think i shall go hear the s-9's asap.)


 everyone says about the mementos what you are saying about the s-9's. i did not hear this myself. it could be the music i brought. or subjectivity. nonetheless i was strangely intrigued by them. maybe if by nothing other than their physical beauty. however shallow that may be.

 my musical preference tends to be classic(pops) and progressive/modern jazz. i will listen to pretty much anything so long as it is well recorded. you may even see that i showed up in the hip-hop thread. 

 the utopias do not really throw a wall of sound that would make them appear much larger than they are. they are however very accurate and true to what was recorded. that is usually my number one criteria for equipment.

 i normally listen at very low levels. around 85db. do the s-9's still function well at such low levels? if i "crank" the utopias(solely for a test) they "poop" out quickly. of course i don't mind since i don't do that.

 to me "live" means not a recording. ie, musicians playing in person as listeners are physically present. simply a matter of semantics. i thought you meant the s-9's impart a fake "venue" effect. i take it that is not what you meant. 

 as an engineer i can generally distinguish a vast difference between music that has been recorded and the music as it is being recorded while i am present. this is inherently due to limitations of all recording mediums, acoustics and the application of engineering processes. very good recordings(of which there are few) shall do a better job of capturing what "really went on" as the recording took place. 

 what i expect of my equipment is to playback as close to possible exactly what has been imprinted upon the recording medium. not to attempt to decipher the essence of whatever might have actually occured in it's entirety during the recording process. in regard not only to editing and processing but also acoustics and miking.

 do the s-9's attempt to playback the information they are fed as it exists or do they try to interpolate information? i hope they do not present a wall of sound if it does not exist on a recording. many recordings are very intimate. it is hard for any speaker to be a jack of all trades. especially very small ones. everyone must ultimately decide on ones to their liking or compromise. the fact is that all loudspeakers impart a different sound when fed the same media. otherwise there would only be one speaker company in the world!

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Well, it could turn out in the end that I'm just blowing smoke out of my rear - seems like you have the opportunity to hear the speakers yourself, if you choose to take it. Smooth flat frequency response, even power response, controlled dispersion, low distortion. The speaker designer is an engineer, and he originally designed his company's speakers as the ultimate monitors for pro use. It's a nice speaker and I like it. YMMV. I won't even say that you'll like it better than any given speaker. We both agree that people have different tastes. Our musical tastes are pretty similar except I don't like avantgarde/free jazz all that much, if that's what you mean by progressive. If you mean current artists like Hiromi or Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, then I'm with you.


----------



## music_man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well, it could turn out in the end that I'm just blowing smoke out of my rear -_

 

i doubt that. you have described them as you heard them. i can tell by reading many of your posts that you are competent at reviewing such items.

 the manner in which you have described them would suggest i would like them a lot. as i always say "this stuff is highly subjective". so i will let you know what i think once i hear them. i do intend to. it might be a while untill i get to where they are located though. 

 in the meantime i will probably demo anything high end and small that happens to be close by me if i come across it. i will report my findings here if anything stands out(or doesnt).

 so stay tuned.

 on a side note, i figured i'd mention the dynaudio special 25's. the limited edition birdseye finish ones. i always really liked those. i don't know why i missed my opportunity at the time to own a pair at a great price 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 new ones sold out a long time ago. quite frankly i remember them to be more to my liking than my focals. i still really like the focals. i'm not simply out to replace them. if something is much better for me i call that evolution. in that case i would not hesitate to replace them. or any audio component that i felt was better for that matter.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

I do my best to avoid overstatement, which I suspect runs rampant on most audio forums, and perhaps even professional reviews. I've heard great things about the special 25s. I'd love to hear them one day.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i am intrested to hear this: http://sumikoaudio.net/sonus/prod_guarneri_memento.htm

 it could maybe a huge upgrade to my micro utopias. on the other hand as always speaker sound is highly subjective. just because they are twice the price of my jmlab's doesnt mean i'd be guaranteed to like them better of course. once i hear them i'll let you guys know(what i think).

 well, one thing i think already is they are some darn expensive little speakers 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 they'd have to compete with reference floorstanders for that kind of cash imho.

 music_man_

 

Dude, 
 I've heard the Guarneri Homage. Probably the only speaker I've ever heard that had bass that was in the same league as my old Thiel 1.5s (very tight and accurate). Bear in mind I'm an upright bass *FANATIC*. A VERY VERY good speaker and one of the very few that really stands out from the crowd as both highly accurate and musically balanced.
 Ps I'm convinced that good monitors are a very good way to go in order to minimize the extreme bass hump that most small to average sized rooms impart. If you get it right, the rolled off bass responce of a monitor (in comparison to a full sized floor stander) can very nicely balance the room reenforcement.


----------



## music_man

the memento's are even supposed to be a whole lot better than the homage. a whole lot more money too. they are certainly top class speakers.

 i'd love to have them. my issue with them is i wouldn't be able to use their stands. i have been told by sumiko and others that they must be on their stands for optimal performance. also, they need some room. they can not be backed into a wall.

 the utopia's on the other hand do not seem to care so much about placement. i have tried them in much better situations and they sounded similar. that is, good. the memento's are better but they have requirements i cannot meet. so that would just be a huge waste of money on my part.


 i am planning on hearing the s-9's as soon as i can.

 music_man


----------



## chesebert

the dealer near me sells S9 I don't know if he has any demo units available. I do worry about their "home brew" warranty issues. 

 They really have to beat and just equal Harbeth Super HL5 to make me change my mind.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_the memento's are even supposed to be a whole lot better than the homage. a whole lot more money too. they are certainly top class speakers.

 i'd love to have them. my issue with them is i wouldn't be able to use their stands. i have been told by sumiko and others that they must be on their stands for optimal performance. also, they need some room. they can not be backed into a wall.

 the utopia's on the other hand do not seem to care so much about placement. i have tried them in much better situations and they sounded similar. that is, good. the memento's are better but they have requirements i cannot meet. so that would just be a huge waste of money on my part.


 i am planning on hearing the s-9's as soon as i can.

 music_man_

 

You do realize that if you want any speaker to image it needs to be away from the walls. On the other hand that is where bass frequency and impulse responce suffers and the "Allison Effect" becomes very pronounced. That is why the new digital crossover/ correction technology is so exciting. It is currently too different and radical for mainstream acceptance and it will probably be years (maybe even decades) before it catches on. But... for people in the know, there is a revolution in speaker design philosophy currently going on . It involoves placing a dedicated woofer (for frequencies below the 200-400 hz region) in the corners (where they perform best) and a mid/high satelite further out in the room (for maximum imaging). You then digitally cross the system using this technology to properly time and phase align the separate drivers. Add to that advances in room correction and the potential is revolutioinary. If I had the space I'd get a pair of old NHT super zeros (that have virtually no bass but were *VERY* good above 150 hz and dirt cheap ) and pair them with Tact designed high efficiency corner loaded woofers that can be had for $2000 (custom built using scanspeak drivers). Add a Tact 2.2X crossover/processor and pair of amps and you could build a state of the art setup (and I don't use the phrase "state of the art" lightly). The amps don't even have to be powerfull since the separation of satelite and woofer allows one to take full advantage of boundry reenforcement and makes for a very high efficiency system. This is the kind of thing that the real hardcore audiophiles (who aren't afraid to using cutting edge technology) are doing to today. They custom build a speaker satelite system based on thier favourite drivers and optimize the components using digital processers. The real beauty of this is that it can be done relatively cheaply. I would go this route myself, but I live in a small apartment and i don't have properly situated "corners" and boundries to work with. Music man, as a DIY'er whose not afraid to roll up his sleaves, this is right up your ally. If you want to research this further check out the Tact audio forum at : http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TacTAudioUsersGroup/


----------



## ooheadsoo

Or you could buy bass traps and treat the acoustics problem at the source instead of buying a $5k tact, which can, realistically, only optimize for one spot. Music_man has a LEDE dedicated system with a pair of wilsons, already, anyway. Lucky him. This is for the casual listening setup.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Or you could buy bass traps and treat the acoustics problem at the source instead of buying a $5k tact, which can, realistically, only optimize for one spot. Music_man has a LEDE dedicated system with a pair of wilsons, already, anyway. Lucky him. This is for the casual listening setup._

 

Uhhhh...No!
 Wrong on virtually every count. The Tact can only optimize "phase" responce at one location (tube traps can't even "attempt" to address that issue). Frequency response is not so specific. More importantly there is no free lunch. Trying to compensate for environmental frequency distortions with Tube Traps is a complete waste of time. If you actually knew anything about the Physics of acoustics (which I do) and what Tube Traps attempt to do you'd realize this fact. Mechancally trying to fix the highly complex and unique way that each room interacts with a speaker is very difificult and virtually impossible with a generic design. Even if you had multiple "tunable" traps you'd need know exactly what frequencies (plural) to hit and how much to attenuate. At best, with multiple *custom *designed "traps" based on the speciic requirments of your room you could improve things a bit. To get anything better than random hit and miss results you'd first need to map the room responce and design each of a number traps to target numerous unique, and very specific, frequencies. That is only half the problem. You then need to design each of these traps to attenuate these various frequencies by specifically correct amounts. Any major changes, like moving the speakers, or a sofa or filling the room with guests or opening a large window will change the results. 
 You might "subjectively" think that a few generic bass traps are working, but they can NEVER yeild a properly flat frequency responce. If you don't believe me get some equipment and do a frequency sweep on your room. Realistically there is no "perfect" solution but digital processing at the source can, and does, yield significant improvements.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Yes, sir, right away, sir.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes, sir, right away, sir._

 

Right back atcha.


----------



## music_man

i am well aware of the tact. i am rather old fashioned. i use tubes and vinyl still. i know the tact can work wonders. it is not really physically "correcting" anything. it is playing a trick on your brain. yes, it can make a system sound much better. many may say that is all that counts. i am just too old school to enjoy my brain being "tricked". regardless if my brain thinks it sounds better. maybe i am missing out because i am stedfast in my ways. i like what i like and that is just personal. i'd rather hear a systems limitations than digitally "fix" it. even if those limitations are vast and could be vastly improved upon via processing. i think tact is good for many people. it does work. even for me. it's completely a personal issue with me.

 on the other hand the tact is designed to remedy most real world situations.
 i feel it is still no match for a completely custom designed listening enviroment built to achieve specific sonic properties. of course aproaching this design solely in the physical domain does not allow one to constantly retune the room to their liking or changing needs as the tact does.

 i think that digital signal processing is great for people that are open to accepting this technology. i am not. in the studio we routinely use dsp in one manner or the other. home theater relies heavily on dsp and "steering" of signals. i just prefer to hear what is really acoustically present. whether it sounds any good or not. normally if it did not sound good to me i would attempt to remedy the issues physically. in my bedroom this cannot be done. for various reasons. it still sounds pretty good to me all considered. i wouldn't even have room for the tact sub/sat system you describe anyhow in this room.

 when you measure the room after tact processing it does measure as to whatever changes you made. in all honesty it is also tricking your measurement devices. to me unless the sonic properties imparted upon a room exist in the physical sense it does not count.

 i mentioned home theater. the high end theater processors of today do even more than the tact does. with 9.1x speakers. might as well do multi channel sacd or dvd too. just not my thing.

 btw, the dbx driverack is a professional product similar to the tact. it is in respect to the tact the same type of bargain the presonus cs is. 

 music_man


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i am well aware of the tact. i am rather old fashioned. i use tubes and vinyl still. i know the tact can work wonders. it is not really physically "correcting" anything. it is playing a trick on your brain. yes, it can make a system sound much better. many may say that is all that counts. i am just too old school to enjoy my brain being "tricked". regardless if my brain thinks it sounds better. maybe i am missing out because i am stedfast in my ways. i like what i like and that is just personal. i'd rather hear a systems limitations than digitally "fix" it. even if those limitations are vast and could be vastly improved upon via processing. i think tact is good for many people. it does work. even for me. it's completely a personal issue with me.

 on the other hand the tact is designed to remedy most real world situations.
 i feel it is still no match for a completely custom designed listening enviroment built to achieve specific sonic properties. of course aproaching this design solely in the physical domain does not allow one to constantly retune the room to their liking or changing needs as the tact does.

 i think that digital signal processing is great for people that are open to accepting this technology. i am not. in the studio we routinely use dsp in one manner or the other. home theater relies heavily on dsp and "steering" of signals. i just prefer to hear what is really acoustically present. whether it sounds any good or not. normally if it did not sound good to me i would attempt to remedy the issues physically. in my bedroom this cannot be done. for various reasons. it still sounds pretty good to me all considered. i wouldn't even have room for the tact sub/sat system you describe anyhow in this room.

 when you measure the room after tact processing it does measure as to whatever changes you made. in all honesty it is also tricking your measurement devices. to me unless the sonic properties imparted upon a room exist in the physical sense it does not count.

 i mentioned home theater. the high end theater processors of today do even more than the tact does. with 9.1x speakers. might as well do multi channel sacd or dvd too. just not my thing.

 btw, the dbx driverack is a professional product similar to the tact. it is in respect to the tact the same type of bargain the presonus cs is. 

 music_man_

 

Dude you are really starting to worry me. First Yamaha and now this? To begin with I believe I made the point that to "fix" room issues mechanicaly requires a completely custom solution. You may know some stuff about electrical circuit design, but I've done a Physics degree and know a little bit about constructive and destructive wave interferance (actually it's pretty basic first year stuff). You claim the Tact "tricks" your brain. Do you even know how the Tact works? First of all it doesn't "sheer" the signal, it attenuates it. If you have a problem with this you should probably stop using your volume control. Older analog technology that attempted this created more problems than it fixed (introduced serious phase distortion). Dealing with the problem in the digital domain can totally bypass/ compensate for this. On a very basic level, one of it's main functions is to create digital filters that are mirror images of the rooms response in order to attenuate constructively interfering standing waves. How do you get that this is a trick? and BTW the closest thing I've heard to my AKGs is my main home rig so it must be doing a pretty good job of removing some of the rooms distortion. The only differences are that the speakers image better while the headphones have more detail and less smearing of the bass in the time domain (impulse). 

 And that said, yes, Tact does room correction. That's what I use it for but... just as importantly (maybe even more so) some of their models also serve as completely flexable digital crossovers. That's *HUGE*! Think about it. Half of the problem in good speaker design comes from choosing and implementing the crossover. This is a magor problem in analog design and must, as a result, fix the drivers relative to each other in a cabinet ( with all the compromises this implies).The way low frequencies behave and interact with the room is vastly different then the way the higher frequencies do and so having to put all the drivers in the same place has major inherant drawbacks. That means that ALL speaker design is a compromise where the designer tries to aim at a broad range of environements and must make permanent decisions regarding how the drivers will integrate. With a digital crossover you can create the exact crossover slope you need and then time a phase align the drivers after they are positioned. That means one is freed from the worst compromise imposed by the old technology (the need to group all the drivers in fixed cabinet). Actually if you don't get the problem with optimizing impulse, time, frequency and phase responce using older technology then there's no point in me explaining further. It took me a few months to see what all the fuss was about myself. I only brought it up because you seemed to be someone willing to go the extra mile to get the very best. Do a little research. People with speaker systems that are conventionally considered state of that art are ripping out their crossovers and adding corner loaded woofers (essentially runnig running top of the line B&W, Appogees etc etc for the mids and highs only). Like I said, if you don't want take advantage of what is possible with digital today be my guest. (BTW this the kind of stuff NHT is getting into to push performance up and price down. They have a $4000 system that is ranked by Stereophile as class A. Right along side the $45,000 Wilson Maxx)
 Gerry

 BTW I really don't care if there is digital gear out there that is cheaper then the Tact. I picked mine up for $1600 and it does the job just fine. Pro gear like the CS is great but if I had to do it again, quite frankly I'd just buy another DAC1. It does a better job with less muss and fuss. Likewise the Tact gets the job done just fine. I seriously doubt the guys at DBX have an engnineer of the caliber of Tact's Dr Bozovic (a PHD in wave propagation research) . The main point isn't to quible about who does it best, the main point is how to use this technology to solve problems that have pagued designers for the last 50 years. Everyone has a choice. Stay in the box or think out of it.


----------



## freeflier

Delete...


----------



## milkpowder

But the thing is, does the TacT room correction have to replace your preamp? My understanding is that the TacT has a built in digital pre already. Tell me if I'm talking out of my rear end.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *milkpowder* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But the thing is, does the TacT room correction have to replace your preamp? My understanding is that the TacT has a built in digital pre already. Tell me if I'm talking out of my rear end._

 

Yes the Tact does act as a preamp (if you want it to). I does the attenuation in the digital domain. With 24 bits of internal floating point precision and bit shifting the data it serves as a virtually transparent preamp (bettering, in this respect alone, preamps in it's price range). I am quite happy with it as pre. I'm a little anal about every detail so I've calculated that I have, in practice, 20 bits of resolution available (limited by my Dac1). That means 4 bits of attenuation before any degradation in dynamic range (or 24db). I figure the correction process itself gobbles up about 15 db of this so I have about 9 or 10 db a perfectly transparent attenuation available. I have calibrated the output of my Dac1 so that I can operate adequately in this range. If I ever need to go lower, I switch the output to full scale and use the analog volume control on my Dac1. 
 Gerry


----------



## music_man

you don't have to get mad because we have different views. i realise that some people enjoy the pursuit of high fidelity via any aproach available.

 the tact will indeed make things sound "the way they should". by doing(in the most basic sense) room correction and acting as a crossover. 

 i am not one to tear up top of the line b&w's or similar speakers. furthermore i am of the feeling that room correction must be done mechanically or it is simply "cheating". where is all the fun anymore? i still love to hear a lp pop loud enough to blow the fuse on a 20 watt tube amp(they didn't have protection). lol.

 i would not have a problem personally owning the tact. i am open to all kinds of new technology. i doubt however i would own it as my reference system. i could be wrong i have eaten words before. i am already familiar with the tact so i do not need to "warm" up to the idea anymore. it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. 

 this is much different than redbook audio for instance. that was simply evolution and i more or less quickly embraced it. the tact is a rather radical approach, even still. oh, please do not tell me that tearing up $45,000 speakers is not a radical approach.

 i put certain limits on myself. this is like telling a vegitarian that "they don't know what they are missing" because they won't eat a cow. they have their reasons. i have stated my reasons for not accepting the tact. at least not as mainstream. it is not. it is cutting edge. i tend to stay away from the cutting edge. if it becomes more widely accepted i may indeed end up with one.

 freeflier, you and i simply have some different views on audio. we also have agreed on some things. not everyone agrees on everything. you don't have to get mad at me for that if you are open minded. open minded in the sense that even if you think i am somewhat closed minded in regard to this technology you will accept my view as well. even if we do not agree. i never push anyone on anything. i may recommend something. thats all.

 i know that you like to really process your sound. you have big ben,squeeze box, tact. patrick82 is hugely into "cable research". i have my own views about audio as well. however mine tend to be more of the time tested type. ie, old technology. i am not quick to embrace the cutting edge.
 as audiophiles one must choose their aproach to achieving the sound they so desire. their is really no right or wrong aproach to this. everyone has different ears and feelings. you should be accepting of this.

 to that effect, yamaha actually does make a few decent(top of product range) receivers. they, imho will beat cambridge and nad. they are a lot more money so they should. will they beat krell or mark levinson? not a chance. i didn't say they would. they are upper mid-fi. not by any means ultra hi-fi.
 i don't know why that statement offends you. it is just an opinion. you did state that you have not even heard them. go compare the $1,000+ yamahas to a cambridge or nad integrated or receiver than you tell me.
 i have at least heard the tact to form my opinion.

 anyways, i am calling peace here. i mean no offense. we have different views. thats all. no need to force them on each other. we can all coexist in harmony here. hopefully.

 music_man


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ i am calling peace here. i mean no offense. we have different views. thats all. no need to force them on each other. we can all coexist in harmony here. hopefully.

 music_man_

 

Loa Tzu couldn't have said it better.
 BTW, I'm not trying to "force" anything on anyone. I'm simply pointing out that there are new solutions to old problems emerging with the delopement of digital technology that many people are too closed minded to even consider. My* ONLY* beef is that some are so resigned to the compromises of old technology that their minds are closed and preconceptions dominate thier thinking. Many people who were around when "Stereophonic" sound was first introduced rejected it because it didn't conform to the "in a barrel" mono sound they were conditioned to accepting. More to the point in this case...in the past, it has been widely accepted that the less "processing" you did to the signal the better. This is a fundamental principle in analog technology as it applies to Hi Fi. You are taking that principle and applying it where it has no relavance. How does a Big Ben "process" the signal? That implies distortion and coloration. It simply reclocks it to reduce jitter. How does a Squeezebox "process" the signal? It simply relays data accurately from your computer. The paradigm shift that many people can't wrap their minds aroung is that digital doesn't transmit the picture...it transmits a "description" of the picture. You can't distort the picture by processing the data the way you can distort analog by going through extra devices. Think of reading text as an analogy for how digital works. Whether the text is faded or discoloured or undersized makes no diference to your understanding of the meaning (as long as you can read it). Analog on the other hand, if it is not implemented correctly, has the potential of actually changing the meaning of the text. 
 THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT PARADIGMS!


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Loa Tzu couldn't have said it better.
 BTW, I'm not trying to "force" anything on anyone. I'm simply pointing out that there are new solutions to old problems emerging with the delopement of digital technology that many people are too closed minded to even consider. My* ONLY* beef is that some are so resigned to the compromises of old technology that their minds are closed and preconceptions dominate thier thinking. Many people who were around when "Stereophonic" sound was first introduced rejected it because it didn't conform to the "in a barrel" mono sound they were conditioned to accepting. More to the point in this case...in the past, it has been widely accepted that the less "processing" you did to the signal the better. This is a fundamental principle in analog technology as it applies to Hi Fi. You are taking that principle and applying it where it has no relavance. How does a Big Ben "process" the signal? That implies distortion and coloration. It simply reclocks it to reduce jitter. How does a Squeezebox "process" the signal? It simply relays data accurately from your computer. The paradigm shift that many people can't wrap their minds aroung is that digital doesn't transmit the picture...it transmits a "description" of the picture. You can't distort the picture by processing the data the way you can distort analog by going through extra devices. Think of reading text as an analogy for how digital works. Whether the text is faded or discoloured or undersized makes no diference to your understanding of the meaning (as long as you can read it). Analog on the other hand, if it is not implemented correctly, has the potential of actually changing the meaning of the text. 
 THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT PARADIGMS!_

 

uh..I think you are essentially describing what BOSE does. which IMO sounds like POS. 

 True to your post regarding an active cross over, in which I believe you discussed means of acquiring impulse response curves in the time domain and convert hose impose responses gathered into a transfer function that will give you the end result of what perceived to be a balanced FR. 

 Couple things I have heard with system employing this type of cross over: BOSE and Bo Olf. both claim to do exactly that, and both sucked to no end IMO. And those systems were well over $5000 IIRC. 

 One of the fundamental paradigm of designing a good audio system is that any piece of audio equipment cannot be designed via equipment alone. The most important step is 'voicing' That step is purely subjective and consequently equipments that were voiced correctly sound great, those weren't sounded bad, despite their respective prowess in the measurement department. 

 To apply the same analogy, instead of using your ear and some 'ancient' mechanical technique to 'voice' those speaker to your room, you are applying one or a selection of sets of pre-determined/ or measured transfer function to your signal. Your active cross over know no more about what music is than the equipments that are used to design amplifier/speaker/CDP, you name it. To blindly trust a DSP program to 'come up' with an optimal set of TF is like designing an set of speaker in software. 

 I do not proclaim to know much about DSP except that I designed and programed one of the TI DSP chips when I was in college to perform as a sound card (IIRC I used matlab to design the filter TF). So basically I spent about a year learning DSP. know enough to get myself in trouble 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 One more things to consider: one cannot judge speaker output by merely looking at the FR curve. I hope you know that by now as should most ppl here on this forum.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_uh..I think you are essentially describing what BOSE does. which IMO sounds like POS. _

 

You clearly have never heard any of the equipment I use so I won't even waste my time.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_One more things to consider: one cannot judge speaker output by merely looking at the FR curve. I hope you know that by now as should most ppl here on this forum._

 

Uhhh, Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 I use years of exposure to live musical instruments as my reference. I temper my assessment of the technology with a backround in Physics. What do you do besides make arbitrary "assertions".


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To apply the same analogy, instead of using your ear and some 'ancient' mechanical technique to 'voice' those speaker to your room, you are applying one or a selection of sets of pre-determined/ or measured transfer function to your signal. Your active cross over know no more about what music is than the equipments that are used to design amplifier/speaker/CDP, you name it. To blindly trust a DSP program to 'come up' with an optimal set of TF is like designing an set of speaker in software. 
_

 

Clearly you have absolutely no conception of how room correction works. 
 One "can" impose and "arbitrary" aspect to the transfer function but that plays a very tiny role in the fundamental principle and implementation of the digital filters. Here's an idea. Talk about stuff you actually know something about.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You clearly have never heard any of the equipment I use so I won't even waste my time.



 Uhhh, Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
 I use years of exposure to live musical instruments as my reference. I temper my assessment of the technology with a backround in Physics. What do you do besides make arbitrary "assertions"._

 

active cross over has its root in DSP so your Physics background won't help you much there I am afraid. 

 And you are not the only one with 'year of exposure to live musical instruments' so what's your point in bringing that up exactly?


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Clearly you have absolutely no conception of how room correction works. 
 One "can" impose and "arbitrary" aspect to the transfer function but that plays a very tiny role in the fundamental principle and implementation of the digital filters. Here's an idea. Talk about stuff you actually know something about._

 

?? and you have been designing DSP for how long now? just because you subscribed to the idea of TACT system, and your ownership in one doesn't make everyone's system any inferior. There is no need proclaim one set of technology as the next best thing.

 TACT is basically a one big DSP which applies some causal filters, that are generated via certain measurements to incoming digital data in the frequency domain. no need to make this more complicated than it needs to be.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_active cross over has its root in DSP so your Physics background won't help you much there I am afraid. _

 

Actually I'm working on a Computer Science degree at the moment, but that's neither here nor there. I use my Physics (and courses specifically in acoustics) to assess the how sound interacts with a room and the potential for solutions (how the solution is implemented is another issue)



  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_active cross over has its root in DSP so your Physics background won't help you much there I am afraid. 
_

 

In truth, 
 Just bored and killing time. Hanging around here or Audio Asylum or any audio site is IMO 99.9999% wasted time, but...every now and then I learn something. Unfortuneatly one has to sift through an awefull lot of garbage to find those gems. 

 Ps I've never been in a Ferrari but the basic idea sounds a lot like my "Geo Metro" which IMO is a POS too.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Actually I'm working on a Computer Science degree at the moment, but that's neither here nor there. I use my Physics (and courses specifically in acoustics) to assess the how sound interacts with a room and the potential for solutions (how the solution is implemented is another issue)





 In truth, 
 Just bored and killing time. Hanging around here or Audio Asylum or any audio site is IMO 99.9999% wasted time, but...every now and then I learn something. Unfortuneatly one has to sift through an awefull lot of garbage to find those gems. 

 Ps I've never been in a Ferrari but the basic idea sounds a lot like my "Geo Metro" which IMO is a POS too.
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

1. nice piece of staw man with the Ferarri anology
 2. CS won't help you much in DSP, which is essentially an CE/EE practice. 
 3. What you learn in school won't help you much in this hobby either. 
 4. seeing you have Thiel, I think I know what kind of audiophile you are now. We for sure don't share the same view on audio. so no need to discuss any further.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_?? and you have been designing DSP for how long now? just because you subscribed to the idea of TACT system, and your ownership in one doesn't make everyone's system any inferior. There is no need proclaim one set of technology as the next best thing.

 TACT is basically a one big DSP which applies some causal filters, that are generated via certain measurements to incoming digital data in the frequency domain. no need to make this more complicated than it needs to be._

 

Who said anyone's system was inferior? I merely brought up the notion that by takiing advantage of some of the current inovations going on in the digital world Music Man could put together a truely advanced sound system (for not too much money). Personally I will never consider spending $5000-$10000 on speakers again when they are nothing more then a huge set of outdated compromises with most of the engineering going into solutions to problems that can now be solved in better ways. 

 As for the "causal" filters, who's making this more complicated than it has to be. The frequency responce of the room is measured and a filter is generated based on the inverted curve to attenuate the constructively interfereing standing waves. The processing makes no attempt to fill in suckouts which would quicky fry the amplifier. The entire curve is simply attenuated so that the maximum never exceeds O db. This insures that the resulting flat responce is attenuated down to the minimum suckout level. In other word the sum of room and filtered output yeilds a max of the worst possible scenerio that the amp/speaker is capabhle of delivering. This is main problem with room correction. You can't actually fill suckouts, only attenuate the humps. The tradeoff for a flat responce is a slight loss of dymanic range. The result (~80db) is still well above the 60 db of practical dynamic range that analog systems historically could achieve.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_4. seeing you have Thiel, I think I know what kind of audiophile you are now. We for sure don't share the same view on audio. so no need to discuss any further._

 

Probably never heard the 2.4s either. Am I right or am I right? As for "school" not helping in this hobby, let me remind you that audio equipment is not "magic", it has been "engineered" according to the know laws of Physics.
 BTW IMO there are two kinds of audiophile. The ones that use live music as a reference and the ones that use subjective perception and flavour to "taste". I think I know which one you are so you are right... no need to discuss further.

 Ps Learning to use Tact equipment properly takes a least few months. It's not intuitive to most people and one needs to understand the limitations before it can be implemented corectly.


----------



## music_man

Lao Tzu. i don't know if you meant i was speaking taoism in regard to the part of my post that you quoted. or in regard to the fact that i will not accept "more" as "more".

 if the latter, you are correct. you are talking to a guy that thinks the "first watt is the most important". among other such frugalities. to me quadraphonic is still more intresting than todays dsp multi channel. call me an old codger if you so wish.

 i also strongly subscribe to the notion of let ones ears make the decision as to what sounds best to them. i can really care less about physics and measurments. you may find this very odd, me being an engineer and all. i am no pioneer. i am of the faith that audio reproduction is an art and not a science. i prefer a raw, edgy analog sound. not a processed,polished sound.

 keep in mind tubes are desireable because of the distortion they impart. rendering a "warm" sound. freeflier, you and are just two different types of audiophiles. there is no wrong or right way for each individual to enjoy their music. as i mentioned before, if this was the case and all gear sounded the same there would be only one audio equipment manufacturer in the world.

 if any one person does happen to favor bose. than so be it. it is their ears and their money. they deserve to be pleased. most so called audiophiles despise bose. this is mainly due to their marketing practices anyhow. i am just using them an example of a product that is almost universally disregarded by purveyors of high-end gear. it is not to say that if someone out there, even one person likes bose that they are wrong in doing so. i do not make other peoples decisions for them. everyone is an individual. you, nor i can tell the next person what is best for them in regard to audio.

 on that note, your tact is not so far away from home theater processors. i said "steering" before and you must have read "sheering". as you quoted.
 intrestingly the reason most audiophiles are not embracing this is because it is not so far away from bose tact-ics(pun intended) either. multi channel, 2 channel crosover networks, signal processing, steering(what ever you may refer to all of this as) is regarded by many as simply "sonic sorcery". myself included.

 i have passed over some of the so called best guitars simply because the tops were so figured they just looked fake to me. i'd rather see what looks like real wood. this has no bearing on the sound. i am making an analogy as to what my personal tastes are. in regard to most everything. i like the "real deal". not some facsimile of it. an exact copy, maybe so. still a copy. 

 why have just a tact to make your room sound "right"? yamaha will make your room into a faithfull representation of most any coveted room in the world! yet, you have put yamaha down time and again. i don't understand that philosphy on your part. dsp is computer technology. this is not the difference between mark levinson and aiwa mind you. in this arena yamaha and lexicon have a stronghold on the technology you speak of. they simply implement it in a much more broad sense. the lexicon processor does a whole lot more than the tact. even so, i do not subscribe to any of this wizardry.

 i'd rather my rooms sound as they are. left unscathed. if i wish to perform "tuning" in any manner i intend to do so mechanically. indeed, the tact can make easy work of this. even if one cannot tell the difference(which i gurantee i can) it is still "cheating" in my book. to me this is like sosa hitting 'em out of the park with a corked bat. dsp being the cork in this matter.

 freeflier, we might as well just agree to disagree on this matter at this point.
 again, on my part i mean no hard feelings. i am sure that in the future i can take home usefull information from you. hopefully you likewise from myself. 

 i have taken much advice that i have heard here and at other forums. i have always personally listened before i made my decision. i have never made a purchase site unseen based on testimony. i have heard all of the equipment you have. implemented properly and in different situations. it is simply not my "bag". this is like you saying everyone must have "x" brand of newfangled amplifier technology and no other can compete. i hate posts like this. 

 most importantly, i think i speak as a gentleman when i plead: allow people to make their own choices. don't force something down our throats. please.

 music_man


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lao Tzu. i don't know if you meant i was speaking taoism in regard to the part of my post that you quoted. or in regard to the fact that i will not accept "more" as "more".

 if the latter, you are correct. you are talking to a guy that thinks the "first watt is the most important". among other such frugalities. to me quadraphonic is still more intresting than todays dsp multi channel. call me an old codger if you so wish.

 i also strongly subscribe to the notion of let ones ears make the decision as to what sounds best to them. i can really care less about physics and measurments. you may find this very odd, me being an engineer and all. i am no pioneer. i am of the faith that audio reproduction is an art and not a science. i prefer a raw, edgy analog sound. not a processed,polished sound.

 keep in mind tubes are desireable because of the distortion they impart. rendering a "warm" sound. freeflier, you and are just two different types of audiophiles. there is no wrong or right way for each individual to enjoy their music. as i mentioned before, if this was the case and all gear sounded the same there would be only one audio equipment manufacturer in the world.

 if any one person does happen to favor bose. than so be it. it is their ears and their money. they deserve to be pleased. most so called audiophiles despise bose. this is mainly due to their marketing practices anyhow. i am just using them an example of a product that is almost universally disregarded by purveyors of high-end gear. it is not to say that if someone out there, even one person likes bose that they are wrong in doing so. i do not make other peoples decisions for them. everyone is an individual. you, nor i can tell the next person what is best for them in regard to audio.

 on that note, your tact is not so far away from home theater processors. i said "steering" before and you must have read "sheering". as you quoted.
 intrestingly the reason most audiophiles are not embracing this is because it is not so far away from bose tact-ics(pun intended) either. multi channel, 2 channel crosover networks, signal processing, steering(what ever you may refer to all of this as) is regarded by many as simply "sonic sorcery". myself included.

 i have passed over some of the so called best guitars simply because the tops were so figured they just looked fake to me. i'd rather see what looks like real wood. this has no bearing on the sound. i am making an analogy as to what my personal tastes are. in regard to most everything. i like the "real deal". not some facsimile of it. an exact copy, maybe so. still a copy. 

 why have just a tact to make your room sound "right"? yamaha will make your room into a faithfull representation of most any coveted room in the world! yet, you have put yamaha down time and again. i don't understand that philosphy on your part. dsp is computer technology. this is not the difference between mark levinson and aiwa mind you. in this arena yamaha and lexicon have a stronghold on the technology you speak of. they simply implement it in a much more broad sense. the lexicon processor does a whole lot more than the tact. even so, i do not subscribe to any of this wizardry.

 i'd rather my rooms sound as they are. left unscathed. if i wish to perform "tuning" in any manner i intend to do so mechanically. indeed, the tact can make easy work of this. even if one cannot tell the difference(which i gurantee i can) it is still "cheating" in my book. to me this is like sosa hitting 'em out of the park with a corked bat. dsp being the cork in this matter.

 freeflier, we might as well just agree to disagree on this matter at this point.
 again, on my part i mean no hard feelings. i am sure that in the future i can take home usefull information from you. hopefully you likewise from myself. 

 i have taken much advice that i have heard here and at other forums. i have always personally listened before i made my decision. i have never made a purchase site unseen based on testimony. i have heard all of the equipment you have. implemented properly and in different situations. it is simply not my "bag". this is like you saying everyone must have "x" brand of newfangled amplifier technology and no other can compete. i hate posts like this. 

 most importantly, i think i speak as a gentleman when i plead: allow people to make their own choices. don't force something down our throats. please.

 music_man_

 

Yes count me in as the engineer/piano player who uses ear to judge sound vs a DSP system.

 When I was practicing in my school, the room was full of windows, but that doesn't make the 7ft Steinway any less musical 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I certainly didn't think Steinway needed a TACT system in them to sound 'right' nor have I ever need a DSP hooked to my own piano to make it sound good. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







 Yes. that's right. no TACT system was attached to my piano and it still sounds damn good and my living room is NOT treated at all!!! wohhhh.... figure that out. My violin sounds great too in that same un-treated room!!! OMG...how can that be? have I defied certain laws of acoustics/physics?


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Yes. that's right. no TACT system was attached to my piano and it still sounds damn good and my living room is NOT treated at all!!! wohhhh.... figure that out. My violin sounds great too in that same un-treated room!!! OMG...how can that be? have I defied certain laws of acoustics/physics? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





_

 

Man, I just can't believe how many people havn't thought this through. Why would you change how the origonal room and instrument interact!!! There is nothing to correct? The musician hears it and plays to the environment he's in, altering his touch/ tone to create the right sound for the venue. 
_Now think about this! _ It's when you reproduce the music in another room that you have a problem. You now have your listening room *superimposed *over the origonal listening room. This is where you need the correction. 
 It's amazing how many people think that by making a correction to compensate for the playback room one is making the statement that ALL rooms must removed, anywhere in the recording chain. Not so. Let me restate this. The room is fine for the recording, just not the playback.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, I just can't believe how many people havn't thought this through. Why would you change how the origonal room and instrument interact!!! There is nothing to correct? The musician hears it and plays to the environment he's in, altering his touch/ tone to create the right sound for the venue. 
Now think about this!  It's when you reproduce the music in another room that you have a problem. You now have your listening room *superimposed *over the origonal listening room. This is where you need the correction. 
 It's amazing how many people think that by making a correction to compensate for the playback room one is making the statement that ALL rooms must removed, anywhere in the recording chain. Not so. Let me restate this. The room is fine for the recording, just not the playback._

 

uh..alot of my recordings are fairly close miked. so that just throws your 'superimposed room' argument out the window.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Man, I just can't believe how many people havn't thought this through. Why would you change how the origonal room and instrument interact!!! There is nothing to correct? The musician hears it and plays to the environment he's in, altering his touch/ tone to create the right sound for the venue. _

 

Wow I guess I must suck because I have never contemplated how my should I play a piece to suit certain venue. That is to say i play the same way when I practice and when I give a recital. I don't know anyone that plays either piano or violin to actively compensate their playing wrt the environment they are in .....maybe you do..at least I don't 

 wow your TACT system is really messing with your head


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lao Tzu. i don't know if you meant i was speaking taoism in regard to the part of my post that you quoted. or in regard to the fact that i will not accept "more" as "more".

 if the latter, you are correct. you are talking to a guy that thinks the "first watt is the most important". among other such frugalities. to me quadraphonic is still more intresting than todays dsp multi channel. call me an old codger if you so wish.

 i also strongly subscribe to the notion of let ones ears make the decision as to what sounds best to them. i can really care less about physics and measurments. you may find this very odd, me being an engineer and all. i am no pioneer. i am of the faith that audio reproduction is an art and not a science. i prefer a raw, edgy analog sound. not a processed,polished sound.

 keep in mind tubes are desireable because of the distortion they impart. rendering a "warm" sound. freeflier, you and are just two different types of audiophiles. there is no wrong or right way for each individual to enjoy their music. as i mentioned before, if this was the case and all gear sounded the same there would be only one audio equipment manufacturer in the world.

 if any one person does happen to favor bose. than so be it. it is their ears and their money. they deserve to be pleased. most so called audiophiles despise bose. this is mainly due to their marketing practices anyhow. i am just using them an example of a product that is almost universally disregarded by purveyors of high-end gear. it is not to say that if someone out there, even one person likes bose that they are wrong in doing so. i do not make other peoples decisions for them. everyone is an individual. you, nor i can tell the next person what is best for them in regard to audio.

 on that note, your tact is not so far away from home theater processors. i said "steering" before and you must have read "sheering". as you quoted.
 intrestingly the reason most audiophiles are not embracing this is because it is not so far away from bose tact-ics(pun intended) either. multi channel, 2 channel crosover networks, signal processing, steering(what ever you may refer to all of this as) is regarded by many as simply "sonic sorcery". myself included.

 i have passed over some of the so called best guitars simply because the tops were so figured they just looked fake to me. i'd rather see what looks like real wood. this has no bearing on the sound. i am making an analogy as to what my personal tastes are. in regard to most everything. i like the "real deal". not some facsimile of it. an exact copy, maybe so. still a copy. 

 why have just a tact to make your room sound "right"? yamaha will make your room into a faithfull representation of most any coveted room in the world! yet, you have put yamaha down time and again. i don't understand that philosphy on your part. dsp is computer technology. this is not the difference between mark levinson and aiwa mind you. in this arena yamaha and lexicon have a stronghold on the technology you speak of. they simply implement it in a much more broad sense. the lexicon processor does a whole lot more than the tact. even so, i do not subscribe to any of this wizardry.

 i'd rather my rooms sound as they are. left unscathed. if i wish to perform "tuning" in any manner i intend to do so mechanically. indeed, the tact can make easy work of this. even if one cannot tell the difference(which i gurantee i can) it is still "cheating" in my book. to me this is like sosa hitting 'em out of the park with a corked bat. dsp being the cork in this matter.

 freeflier, we might as well just agree to disagree on this matter at this point.
 again, on my part i mean no hard feelings. i am sure that in the future i can take home usefull information from you. hopefully you likewise from myself. 

 i have taken much advice that i have heard here and at other forums. i have always personally listened before i made my decision. i have never made a purchase site unseen based on testimony. i have heard all of the equipment you have. implemented properly and in different situations. it is simply not my "bag". this is like you saying everyone must have "x" brand of newfangled amplifier technology and no other can compete. i hate posts like this. 

 most importantly, i think i speak as a gentleman when i plead: allow people to make their own choices. don't force something down our throats. please.

 music_man_

 

Taoism actually and the "Yamaha" comment was tongue in cheek. 
 Music Man I'm not craming anything down anyones throat. When someone makes a comment based on a misconception that I know to be ill informed I correct them. You've done the exact same thing with regard to line conditioners and power supplies. At length I might add.
 And yes, digital does suck (compared to analog). That's all the more reason to make the most of it and take full advantage of what it can do that you can't do witb analog.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_uh..alot of my recordings are fairly close miked. so that just throws your 'superimposed room' argument out the window._

 

You are the one who brought up windows. Now you are just altering the premise to try and deflate my arguement. If you want to talk about close miking and removing the room from the recording then lets talk about that. Would that be practical with an orchestra or even a Jazz quartet. Do you really want to try and create the illusion that a full orchestra is in your living room. I guarantee that would definitely sound like ****. It seems more logical to create the illusion of being at the concert hall. That means capturing the room acoustics and attempting to maintain that integrity at reproduction. 

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Wow I guess I must suck because I have never contemplated how my should I play a piece to suit certain venue. That is to say i play the same way when I practice and when I give a recital. I don't know anyone that plays either piano or violin to actively compensate their playing wrt the environment they are in .....maybe you do..at least I don't 

 wow your TACT system is really messing with your head 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I don't know man. How deep did you get into your art? These are not concious decisions. Playing music is about the moment. It's not simply a mechanical recitation of memorized movements. If your ears are open you've *got *to be hearing yourself as you play (and the other musicians if that applies). If you are not, yes you are right, you probably aren't very good. On the other hand if you hear yourself you hear the room. Sound and tonality are HUGE elements of Jazz (and I would assume Classical as well). Tons of great players are recognized for the sound they are able to create, not just the way they play or the notes they choose. ie. Lester Young, Philly Joe Jones, Miles (of course), Wynton Marsallis etc etc etc etc etc 

 BTW I don't consider myself a great player. I'm a drummer and stopped long ago for reasons I won't go into but... I did study for a number of years with the great Jim Blackley (teacher of many many awesome players like Danny Richmond (Mingus's drummer) and Terry Clark to name a couple). I got exposed to some very deep stuff.


----------



## freeflier

Ps 
 Before you go there, don't bother with the "a drummer isn't a musician" cheap shot. *It's all about time and groove!*


----------



## ooheadsoo

Would you care to explain why broadband absorption does not work?


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You are the one who brought up windows. Now you are just altering the premise to try and deflate my arguement. If you want to talk about close miking and removing the room from the recording then lets talk about that. Would that be practical with an orchestra or even a Jazz quartet. Do you really want to try and create the illusion that a full orchestra is in your living room. I guarantee that would definitely sound like ****. It seems more logical to create the illusion of being at the concert hall. That means capturing the room acoustics and attempting to maintain that integrity at reproduction. 



 I don't know man. How deep did you get into your art? These are not concious decisions. If your ears are open you've *got *to be hearing yourself as you play (and the other musicians if that applies). If you are not, yes you are right, you probably aren't very good. On the other hand if you hear yourself you hear the room. Sound and tonality are HUGE elements of Jazz (and I would assume Classical as well). Tons of great players are recognized for their sound (Lester Young, Philly Joe Jones, Miles (of course), Wynton Marsallis etc etc)

 BTW I don't consider myself a great player. I'm a drummer and stopped long ago for reasons I won't go into but... I did study for a number of years with the great Jim Blackley (teacher of many many awesome players like Danny Richmond (Mingus's drummer) and Terry Clark to name a couple). I got exposed to some very deep stuff._

 

I can't change the tone of my piano.... can you? 

 and I can't really hear the room interaction very well seeing I sit about 6in away from the sound board 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 on maintaining the hall acoustic integrity, you are trying to use TACT system to alter that to fit your room. how is that keeping acoustics integrity intact? strange you would be the one bringing up acoustic integrity when you are freely DSPing the incoming signal.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I can't change the tone of my piano.... can you? 

 and I can't really hear the room interaction very well seeing I sit about 6in away from the sound board 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 on maintaining the hall acoustic integrity, you are trying to use TACT system to alter that to fit your room. how is that keeping acoustics integrity intact? strange you would be the one bringing up acoustic integrity when you are freely DSPing the incoming signal._

 

My Tact isn't messing with my head... you are. 
 1) You don't need to conciously assess the sound of the room. It's part of the sound you are producing. As for getting the sound it's all about "touch". 
 (BTW a couple of additiions for GREAT tone: Ben Webster, Coleman Hawkins, Pat Metheny).
 2) Once again, I'll reiterate. If you want to have a meaningfull discussion about Tact (or related) RCS then you really need to educate yourself. When you artificially reproduce music in any normal sized room you get distortions due to constructive and destructive wave interferance paterns. THAT is what you are trying to remove. Have you ever even seen a sweep of the average room? There is an enormous 8-15 db hump below 200 hz (not mention smaller distortions above). That means bass notes are approximately 6-*32* times louder than they should be (6-32 times more power is being generated). THAT'S HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's exagerated, muddies the sound, covers a lot of inner detail and messes with the midrange. 
 And ... it's what most people have been conditioned to think is correct. 
 BTW the correction filters are generated based on a room sweep. They are not just randomly applied to the "incoming" signal.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Would you care to explain why broadband absorption does not work?_

 

Oh man, it's pretty straightforward but I would have a hard time with being able to draw some pictures. Thiink of it this way...a hump due to constructive interfeance looks like a hill and might be 20-50 hz wide. You would need to target the center, know the exact Q factor (width), and also the relative amplitude. These are all unique to each environment. The problem is that there are going to be 2 or 3 or 4 of these major humps (each one unique to your room and speaker system) . Honestly, it was about 10 years ago that I looked into how to make room tuning devices and I forgotten all the details. I ended up concluding that it far too complex a problem to be practical. Like I said before, you could get some results, but they wouldn't even come close to the accuracy possible using custom correction filters applied in the digital domain. Of course it's a different story if you are designing a public venue where months of trial and error would be more cost effective and worthwhile.

 BTW Don't get me wrong. Digitial RCS can't fix everything and there are 2 areas where mechanical solutions are better. First of all it can't deal with suckouts because that would place outrageous demands on both the amp and speakers (probably blowing both). To address this problem one needs to optimize speaker placement in order to minimize the Allison suckout. Secondly the Tact RCS can't really address the phase distortions caused by early reflections of higher frequencies or the reverb of the room. For these, reflection damping panels are probably the way to go (or a much bigger room). As far as I'm concerned RCS fixes the most pernicious problem, the HUGE bass hump inherent to virtually all rooms. For the secondary stuff you need to combine solutions.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_My Tact isn't messing with my head... you are. 
 1) You don't need to conciously assess the sound of the room. It's part of the sound you are producing. As for getting the sound it's all about "touch". 
 (BTW a couple of additiions for GREAT tone: Ben Webster, Coleman Hawkins, Pat Metheny).
 2) Once again, I'll reiterate. If you want to have a meaningfull discussion about Tact (or related) RCS then you really need to educate yourself. When you artificially reproduce music in any normal sized room you get distortions due to constructive and destructive wave interferance paterns. THAT is what you are trying to remove. Have you ever even seen a sweep of the average room? There is an enormous 8-15 db hump below 200 hz (not mention smaller distortions above). That means bass notes are approximately 6-*32* times louder than they should be (6-32 times more power is being generated). THAT'S HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's exagerated, muddies the sound, covers a lot of inner detail and messes with the midrange. 
 And ... it's what most people have been conditioned to think is correct. 
 BTW the correction filters are generated based on a room sweep. They are not just randomly applied to the "incoming" signal._

 

so how does your room change when you load the room up with real instrument? like I said do I need to TACT my instrument?

 uh..actually having designed a sound card via TI DSP I think I know at least how DSP works on a fundamental level. room correction is no more than digitally equalizing your signal via filter constructed with impulse responses generated. 

 I prefer my speaker to load the room similar to a real instrument where I don't need any TACT to 'correct' anything. If the speaker sounds like POS, then I get another one that don't. why is the concept of changing speaker so hard? If you want to experience full symphony, then it won't happen in your 10x10 room no matter how much DSPing you put on the signal, the trick .....is to get a larger room with larger speakers. 

 It's ok if TACT is your thing. I just know that I don't want another EE to tell me how to listen to my music in my room.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh man, it's pretty straightforward but I would have a hard time with being able to draw some pictures. Thiink of it this way...a hump due to constructive interfeance looks like a hill and might be 20-50 hz wide. You would need to target the center, know the exact Q factor (width), and also the relative amplitude. These are all unique to each environment. The problem is that there are going to be 2 or 3 or 4 of these major humps (each one unique to your room and speaker system) . Honestly, it was about 10 years ago that I looked into how to make room tuning devices and I forgotten all the details. I ended up concluding that it far too complex a problem to be practical. Like I said before, you could get some results, but they wouldn't even come close to the accuracy possible using custom correction filters applied in the digital domain. Of course it's a different story if you are designing a public venue where months of trial and error would be more cost effective and worthwhile.

 BTW Don't get me wrong. Digitial RCS can't fix everything and there are 2 areas where mechanical solutions are better. First of all it can't deal with suckouts because that would place outrageous demands on both the amp and speakers (probably blowing both). To address this problem one needs to optimize speaker placement in order to minimize the Allison suckout. Secondly the Tact RCS can't really address the phase distortions caused by early reflections of higher frequencies or the reverb of the room. For these, reflection damping panels are probably the way to go (or a much bigger room). As far as I'm concerned RCS fixes the most pernicious problem, the HUGE bass hump inherent to virtually all rooms. For the secondary stuff you need to combine solutions._

 

To clarify:

 Are you referring to helmholtz resonators, which are the old way of attacking the problem? Today, people are increasingly tending to use broadband absorption, i.e. absorption that covers 40hz-7khz or other various ranges, which absorbs all of those frequencies, thus reducing in amplitude the reflections that are causing the constructive and destructive interference, as you put it. This also deals with the timing issue that the strong and early reflections create, confusing our ears with the direct sound. The idea is to target all bass reflections (and other reflections if desired) instead of using helmholtz resonators to target just the peaks, which, as you have mentioned, is way too complex to handle efficiently. In other words, instead of targetting the constructive interference and leaving the destructive interference alone, as the tact would likely do, they target all interference equally. Remove (or at least reduce) the reflection and the problem is diminshed. It even helps with the Allison suckout. I think it used to be such that old absorption products did not absorb bass frequencies very efficiently and were thus only suitable for early reflection affecting imaging from the midrange on up, but that is no longer the case.

 Tube traps typically refer to a tube of fiberglass, either filled or hollow, and are one form of these broadband absorbers. Other trap types are panels or tricorners made of fiberglass or other materials. AFAIK, helmholtz resonators are not called tube traps.

 Problems with this approach?

 Btw, I have a couple measurement mics that cost me a couple hundred and have played with using my computer for room correction. It's fun, but you know as well as I do that it doesn't solve everything.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_so how does your room change when you load the room up with real instrument? like I said do I need to TACT my instrument?

 uh..actually having designed a sound card via TI DSP I think I know at least how DSP works on a fundamental level. room correction is no more than digitally equalizing your signal via filter constructed with impulse responses generated. 

 I prefer my speaker to load the room similar to a real instrument where I don't need any TACT to 'correct' anything. If the speaker sounds like POS, then I get another one that don't. why is the concept of changing speaker so hard? If you want to experience full symphony, then it won't happen in your 10x10 room no matter how much DSPing you put on the signal, the trick .....is to get a larger room with larger speakers. 

 It's ok if TACT is your thing. I just know that I don't want another EE to tell me how to listen to my music in my room._

 

Fallacy #1: A speaker isn't an instrument. It is a transducer. A saxophone is an instrument. Just because they both make a sound doesn't make them the same anymore than the image of flower pictured on your TV needs water the way the real thing does. 

 Fallacy #2: People don't cram and orchestra or a quartet (or even a steinway) into the average sized living room. Have you ever heard how a sax sounds in a small room? That's not the environment it was designed for. That's why people go to listen in a full sized (often dedicated) venue. It is in this setting that an instrument(s) can properly "load" the room. If you then want to the load another room with a recording of a loaded room, be my guest (I won't cram this down your throat. To each his own). But... don't muddy the water by claiming that this is some kind of realistic or natural phenomenon. BTW the Tact equipment goes well beyond simple amplitude correction. It is also making phase and time corrections and tinkering around with some simple DSPs doesn't mean you know what this technology is all about. If simple DSPs did the job properly Tact would be out of business (you can get this basic stuff free on the web). There are certainly limitations to what can be done but you clearly don't understand them. Why don't you just do a little research so that you know what you are talking about. Better yet, go and listen to proper setup. It won't sound quite right at first because of the compensations your brain has made for the distortions you are accustomed to (This is similar to the way your brain needs a day to adjust to a new eyeglass prescription). Listen with an open mind and give it a couple of days and *THEN* make up your mind...instead of shooting your mouth off in a nonsensical abstract debate. 

 Once again I will reiterate that the Tact can't do everything. The biggest issue IMO that it can't address is the smearing in the time domain as a result of boundry effects in the lower frequencies. That is the problem I alluded to when I made my initial post about placing low frequecy drivers in the corners (where they work best) and then digitally crossing/aligning them with mid/high satelites. I think I've said all I intend to here. This is a waste of time.

 BTW Nearfield miking does nothing to mitigate the effects of standing waves.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Oh.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Get your parameters straight. People don't cram and orchestra or a quartet (or even a steinway) into the average sized living room. They go and listen in a dedicated venue that has been designed to maximize the listening experience (or is at the very least much larger than your room). In this setting the instruments "load" the room. If you want to the load another room with a recording of a loaded room, fine. But don't muddy the water by saying that this is some kind of natural phenomenon. BTW the Tact equipment goes beyond simple amplitude correction. It is also making phase and time corrections and tinkering around with some simple DSPs doesn't mean you know what this technology is all about. If simple DSPs did the job properly Tact would be out of business. There are certainly limitations but you clearly don't understand them. Why don't you just do a little research so that you know what you are talking about. Better yet, listen to proper setup. It won't sound right at first because of the adjustments your brain has made for the distortions you are used to (This is similar to the way your brain needs a day to adjust to a new eyeglass prescription). Listen with an open mind and give it a couple of days before shooting your mouth of about a bunch of theoretical nonsense. 

 Once again I will reiterate that the Tact can't do everything. The biggest issue IMO that it can't address is the smearing in the time domain as a result of boundry effects in the lower frequencies. That is the problem I alluded to when I made my initial post placing low frequecy drivers in the corners (where they work best) and the digitally crossing/aligning them with mid/high satelites. I think I've said all I intend to here. This is a waste of time._

 

actually you are the one with the closed mind, and furthermore you refuse to acknowledge TACT is nothing more than a DSP unit that sells for $3,000. 

 If you ever programed a DSP chip you will know how simple it is, relatively compared to designing an amp (bipolar/FET stuff, opamp based stuff don't count 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that is, not saying designing and programming a DSP is an easy thing. 

 However to categorically denied basic DSP theories as 'nonsense' you have self-invalidated all your arguments wrt DSP and TACT. I say you pick up a DSP book and get yourself some education in that.


----------



## Wodgy

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW the Tact equipment goes beyond simple amplitude correction. It is also making phase and time corrections and tinkering around with some simple DSPs doesn't mean you know what this technology is all about._

 

I find it hard not to laugh when I read this kind of thing. TACT owners often seem very eager to repeat the marketing claims that company makes, but usually have no real understanding of signal processing. _Any_ correction of the impulse response corrects both amplitude and phase.

 TACT makes decent gear, don't get me wrong. But it does nothing that a software based convolver doesn't do, and it doesn't replace the need for decent room treatment.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Oh._

 

ooheadsoo,
 Personally, if I was dead set against digital room correction, I would try to minimize the whole issue with a very high quality monitor that has well controled and rolled off bass. With the right choice you could probably find something that rolls off just as room gain starts to kick in and try and balance them. 
 Be advized though, that accurate bass is going to sound a little light at first but... if it's done right you soon realize that a lot of music is hiding behind the exagerated bass bloat that most poeple seem to covet.


----------



## freeflier

edited


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Wodgy* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I find it hard not to laugh when I read this kind of thing. TACT owners often seem very eager to repeat the marketing claims that company makes, but usually have no real understanding of signal processing. Any correction of the impulse response corrects both amplitude and phase.

 TACT makes decent gear, don't get me wrong. But it does nothing that a software based convolver doesn't do, and it doesn't replace the need for decent room treatment._

 

Did I say different? As far as I know not all DSP "equilizers" use an impulse response to generate 
 their filter. I've also commented repeatedly that in order to use this stuff right you need to understand the limitations. That is not the point. These comments come up in response to people who dismiss the potential because of some kind of philosophical aversion to "processing". In fact as far as I'm concerned the REAL potential is not in the room correction aspect but rather in digital crossover technology.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_actually you are the one with the closed mind, and furthermore you refuse to acknowledge TACT is nothing more than a DSP unit that sells for $3,000. 

 If you ever programed a DSP chip you will know how simple it is, relatively compared to designing an amp (bipolar/FET stuff, opamp based stuff don't count 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that is, not saying designing and programming a DSP is an easy thing. 

 However to categorically denied basic DSP theories as 'nonsense' you have self-invalidated all your arguments wrt DSP and TACT. I say you pick up a DSP book and get yourself some education in that._

 


 Are you just going to keep twisting my words untill you confuse the issue to the point where the whole discussion is so incoherant you can claim some kind of victory? 
 Of course it's a DSP. I never said it wasn't. I was dismissing simple free DSP technology. It's like claiming that software you get supplied with your camera is just as good as the software in a dedicated Photoshop package just because they are both Software. What kind of nonsense are you going to hit me with next?
 How do you know what the Tact does? Have you read the white paper? Have you ever heard one? Who are you trying to kid. Get off your lazy ass.


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *freeflier* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are you just going to keep twisting my words untill you confuse the issue to the point where the whole discussion is so incoherant you can claim some kind of victory? 
 Of course it's a DSP. I never said it wasn't. I was dismissing simple free DSP technology. It's like claiming that software you get supplied with your camera is just as good as the software in a dedicated Photoshop package just because they are both Software. What kind of nonsense are you going to hit me with next?
 How do you know what the Tact does? Have you read the white paper? Have you ever heard one? Who are you trying to kid. Get off your lazy ass._

 

I keep coming back here just to see how mad you get. Its semi entertaining. Nevertheless its not so wrong for one to defend his own purchase, but to go to such a length to defend a company and its product is unusual. TACT should really compensate you for being a loyal customer. If you are happy with your TACT, who am I to say otherwise.


----------



## ooheadsoo

I do have the option to implement software convolving at any point in time. In fact, I am currently using it. I also have a fair amount of fiberglass in my room. My acoustics situation is still terrible. I haven't heard tact processing, but I'm sure it's good. IMO, the real potential isn't in digital xover technology (which you can also implement in software with a pc, without buying a tact pre/pro, but you probably know that) but in mechanically damping a room's reflections. Diffusion can also help, if retaining a more natural reverberant field is desired. I know NHT has done some great stuff with their super steep digital xovers in their xd system, but humans can only take so much spl, and out of band distortion only has to be lowered so much before they are inaudible at usable spls. It's great for small systems like the xd, but if you have the space for a larger system, it's fine, as well. Some speaker designers have recently compared their xover work to their own tact implementation. The result is that it's a pretty dead even heat. Some of them now offer the option of purchasing their speakers sans xover so you can use it with your own tact processor, but by all accounts, the real world results are really close. almost too close to call. In the end, mechanically treating the room is still usually acoustically desirable, which was all I tried to point out, many posts ago.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *chesebert* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I keep coming back here just to see how mad you get. Its semi entertaining. Nevertheless its not so wrong for one to defend his own purchase, but to go to such a length to defend a company and its product is unusual. TACT should really compensate you for being a loyal customer. If you are happy with your TACT, who am I to say otherwise._

 

Actually, 
 I have no loyalty to Tact whatsoever. It is the technology that I'm advocating. They just happen to be the company I'm familiar with and one which is pushing the envelope. Like I said, digital music sucks and I'm all for milking any benefits one can from the possibilities that have opened up. There are definitely a few others are getting there. Meridian and NHT are exploring the potential and I find it quite telling that a $4000 dollar NHT system is sitting next to the $45,000 Wilson Maxx in Stereophiles class A speaker lists. Thiel, B&W and all the rest need to wake up or they are going to get left behind.

 More importanly I despise people who defend what they own as "the best" just because they own it and are afraid to admit they made a mistake. If you knew me you'd know that I'm now married to my possesions and don't get my self image from them. If something is SH!T I'm the first to admit it (and dump it).


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I do have the option to implement software convolving at any point in time. In fact, I am currently using it. I also have a fair amount of fiberglass in my room. My acoustics situation is still terrible. I haven't heard tact processing, but I'm sure it's good. IMO, the real potential isn't in digital xover technology (which you can also implement in software with a pc, without buying a tact pre/pro, but you probably know that) but in mechanically damping a room's reflections. Diffusion can also help, if retaining a more natural reverberant field is desired. I know NHT has done some great stuff with their super steep digital xovers in their xd system, but humans can only take so much spl, and out of band distortion only has to be lowered so much before they are inaudible at usable spls. It's great for small systems like the xd, but if you have the space for a larger system, it's fine, as well. Some speaker designers have recently compared their xover work to their own tact implementation. The result is that it's a pretty dead even heat. Some of them now offer the option of purchasing their speakers sans xover so you can use it with your own tact processor, but by all accounts, the real world results are really close. almost too close to call. In the end, mechanically treating the room is still usually acoustically desirable, which was all I tried to point out, many posts ago._

 


 I don't think there is any processor that can deal with reflections (as it relates to reverb). I don't believe it's even possible in theory. This is definitely where you need absorbtion panels. As for crossover technology, the potential is not in the ability to generate any slope desired (thought it's one). The real advantage is in the potential to decouple the drivers and place them where they can work best in the room and then cross/time align etc afterwards. That means you build the crossover to match the environment and your needs, not try and match your environment to a speaker that is compromised the moment it is designed. Basicly woofers don't work very well where tweeters work well and vise versa. That's why there are so many speaker solutions out there and they are *ALL* essentially just huge compromises of one type or another. This is something that took me quite a while to wrap my mind around. People kept jabbering about it , but untill I actually took a close look at what they were talking about I didn't get it. There are so many aspects to what a conventional speaker can and can't do. As a result the industry tends to focus only on aspects that can be addressed with conventional technology and just ingores everything else ie boundry related time smearing of bass frequencies.


----------



## ooheadsoo

That is a good point, but localization is an issue. In essence, you can only apply that technique to low frequencies, otherwise, you will be able to tell that there is a spatial discontinuity, despite all the alignment in the world. This is clearly one viable solution, but when the frequencies become low and hard to localize, your options open up. Can you really cross to corner subs at 250hz? Maybe, but I'm not sure it is necessarily ideal, either.


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ooheadsoo* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_That is a good point, but localization is an issue. In essence, you can only apply that technique to low frequencies, otherwise, you will be able to tell that there is a spatial discontinuity, despite all the alignment in the world. This is clearly one viable solution, but when the frequencies become low and hard to localize, your options open up. Can you really cross to corner subs at 250hz? Maybe, but I'm not sure it is necessarily ideal, either._

 

EXACTLY. Actually, the way current advocates of this describe it, you are *not* dealing with subs but rather, the woofer that would normally be in a conventional driver. They advocate the use of a high quality, fast and efficient woofer that covers from whatever up to about 400hz in the corners. The one based on Tact designs uses the Scanspeak driver and is can be ordered custom built from this one man outfit for $2000. The mid/high satelites are placed optimally well away from the boundried to minimize early reflections. The other benefit is that one is forced to implement true bi or tri amping. Something that has always been desirable.


----------



## freeflier

Actually, for my money a perfect world = an active digital crossover that utilizes all the benefits of time and amplitude correction coupled with high quality active corner loaded woofers and and active satelites. (preferably built by a marriage between a great amplifier maker with great speaker builder ie Thiel with Krell or Bryston , Sonus Faber with YBA etc etc) 
 This will never happen. Paradigms AWESOME Active 40s were a flop and discontinued. (they are still desperately sought after by those in the know). I had a pair ($1000 used) and for the origonal $2000 retail they were mind bogglingly good. My $7000 Thiel 2.4/ Bryston 4bsst combination beat them out by only the smallest of margins. Unfortuneatley I'm very very picky.


----------



## freeflier

Wait a sec. I just thought of something. If you REALLY want to get as close to the recording as possible, with as little fuss and money as possible....
 [size=medium][size=xx-large]*HEADPHONES*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size][/size]


----------



## music_man

when i "explained" line conditioners to people that asked of me to do so, i stated facts. in regard to their aproach of functionality. when i went on and on about toroids i stated opinions. however, i never argued or picked a fight with anyone.

 freflier, your (perceived) insight into the tact systems abilities is opinion not fact. this falls more into the category of speaker a is better than speaker b when both speakers are within $100 of each other. opinions. subjective.

 if you were to state how the tact physically works at doing what it tries to achieve you would be stating facts. assuming you presented us with correct information. constantly blowing it's horn as being superior technology is an opinion. this is when someone usually chimes in with "do you work for the company you are prasing so highly". at the point where it has gone far beyond a consumer relating their pleasurable experience with a product. opinions are fine. 90% of what you find on audio boards is subjective, opinions. on the other hand getting into bitching matches is rather juvenile imho.

 i am still surprised you are talking about hall effects and such, yet dismiss yamaha so quickly. yamaha invented all that. todays yamaha receivers are for a much different purpose than the tact but a whole lot more "neato" if you ask me. that is really all the tact is about, being "neato". it is attempting to create something that does not exist. ie, take a crummy sounding room and make it sound good without actually physically changing anything in the room. that is a fact. that is what the tact does. is it a robot that walks around placing tube traps where it thinks a room needs them? no.

 as to the nht being next to the wilsons. the wilsons are doing what they do mechanically. hence the price tag. why not put bose on the 'a' list then? yes, bose sounds pretty rotten to seasoned ears. it is based on virtual acoustics(aka digital signal processing). it just so happens that bose' implementation didn't hit the mark for most of us. it is all based on similar technology. bose actually started by trying to implement mechanical means of doing this. now they are onto dsp solutions. i will tell you how to make bose sound quite impressive.

 hook them up to a yamaha 9.1 receiver! freeflier, you did make the argument of not buying expensive speakers anymore since dsp can make any speakers sound like any other speakers. any room sound like any other room. etc. did you not? bose is not to my liking and neither is anything that attempts to make "virtual compensations". to me it represents a matter of purity. all this electronic wizardry will make for a compelling effect. effect. i like to hear what is present solely in the physical sense. different ways of reaching the same point to a great extent. neither is wrong per se. i am not one to to force opinions on others though. nor is it polite for anyone else to do so.

 an ipod fooled some of the most devout audiophiles into thinking it was a high end source. bob carver made a $500 amp sound just like a mcintosh.
 a ferrari kit car can look,sound and perform just as it's genuine counterpart.

 the fact is that all of these examples are not for purists. i never understood why some people always find it compelling to convert other folks to their beliefs. i understand peoples "reasoning" for this. i do not understand why anyone would act on those feelings. personally, i have always found this type of behavior rather distasteful.

 it seems some of us can no longer see the forest through the trees. getting so caught up in the reproduction of music. rather than the music itself. loosing sight of our true pursuit. 

 everyone, go listen to some music and calm down. please.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

i just realised that my above post will probably only serve to further the arguing.

 freeflier, we agree on many things. just not the tact. it is not a big deal to me that i don't care for one. why then is it such a big deal to you that i have one? 

 i do agree on the idea of top notch active speakers. i am a huge fan of sat/woofer systems. i did not say "sub"woofer. most people that love the rel do not even know it measures as a woofer rather than a subwoofer.

 i love my watt/puppys. i think they could be bettered tremendously with a built in yba amp! yba does not use toroids in their flagship amps. hurray!

 i am not a big fan of active crossovers. however i have heard some i did not find offensive. we seem to agree analog remains the most "musical" option to date. i am not a fan of current dsp solutions. why is it so important to you that i am?

 better digital by processing it further? make budweiser better by pouring water in it? not my bag. if it is yours, great. you are 100% entitled to your opinion on that matter. i won't try to change your opinion. i wish you would stop attempting to change mine. i heard your point. i have made my own decision not to implement dsp in my personal audio playback systems.

 i have stated why i have come to that conclusion. based on my own opinions.
 i seem to feel i am entitled to my own decision in this matter and should not be subject to being berated for my choice.

 can we talk about speakers in this thread again, or start another thread about something else already? this is getting old.....and nasty.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

looking foward to your opinion of the s-9 whenever you get the chance.


----------



## freeflier

edit


----------



## freeflier

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 if you were to state how the tact physically works at doing what it tries to achieve you would be stating facts. 

 music_man_

 

You are the one who made a blanket statement dismissing digitial processing out of hand without backing up your objection with any real fact other than contrived analogies about purism, watered down beer, cheap imitations etc etc. The only remotely technical objection you brought up attempted to deride the technology with a derogatory remark about "chopping" frequencies which is both inaccurate and misleading. I could care less if you use or like the stuff or not. Your comments about purism and cheating are indirect insults so put up or shut up. 
 Where exactly is the distortion introduced in the DSP processing chain?

 BTW,
 Try actually reading some of the posts before you criticize. I describe the basic process (a while back), I comment numerous times on both the limitations and possibilities and give specific expamples in various posts, I made it clear that Tact doesn't mean sh!t to me other than they are the only ones pushing the envelope (that I know of), and the back and forth with Cheeseburt has been tongue in cheek. Maybe my comments have been a little "general" but that's a hell of lot more than you've done in terms of concrete FACTS.


----------



## music_man

dsp and mechanical room correction are both vehicles that arrive at roughly the same destination. which ever any one person prefers is up to them.

 people have their personal reasons for everything they do. that is what makes us individuals.

 in this case one is not vastly technically superior over the other. which is why those amongst us whom are educated on the subject are arguing in the first place.

 if it was mark levinson vs. aiwa(in respect to sound not price) this thread would have been two posts long. or one hundred. never can tell 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






 i am apologizing for any seemingly non factual remarks i have made herein.
 i extend to you a truce in this matter.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

The TAS review for the s-9 is out. It's an interesting one. Since it's not available for free, I guess I'll post about the nitpicks. The reviewer has 2 nitpicks, one of which ends up being only half a nitpick:

 1) because of the waveguide, he feels that the treble drops off a lot, and perhaps too much, depending on personal taste, when moving off axis. In truth, more of the treble drops off at the same rate, since the waveguide creates limited constant directivity. What he means is that in a conventional speaker without a waveguide, the 2-10 or so khz range remains high, even very far off axis, while the top octave or so drops likes a rock, whereas with the waveguide, the entire range of the tweeter falls off more evenly. He implies that this affects off axis listening - what he more or less literally says is that unless you are in the sweet spot - which he implies is small - you'll never hear what the speaker is truly capable of. However, in an article on his personal website, he states this: "True stereo for off*axis listeners is impossible: An approximate version of the correct sonic picture is all that can be provided." In my experience, the off axis response is certainly no worse than other conventional speakers. It isn't as good as the sweet spot, and it's obvious since the sweet spot is so sweet, but that isn't to say that the rest of the room doesn't sound like music. In fact, because of the limited high frequency being dispersed into the room off axis, the reviewer claims that this more closely emulates live music, where there is considerably less top end in the reverberant field.

 2) He mentions that there is a small peak at 2khz and has shown this via measurements (not posted in the review.) This is odd because I don't recall seeing that peak in the anechoic plots that were provided for the speaker at the showing I attended, and I'm not sure I heard it. The reviewer used a relatively long gate. If the measurements he took are supposed to be valid from 700hz up. I'll take his word for it, he's a math professor at UCLA and I bet he heard them a heck of a lot longer than I did.

 I'll save the big praise portions of the review for those actually interested in the speaker/review. Well, here's one comment, "I had an almost immediate memory of the real sound of a string orchestra. Few speakers fail to be humiliated by such a recent memory of reality. The S9s were really convincing in this nearly direct comparison with live music. And with their unstrained dynamic behavior, they were convincing on large scale music like full orchestra, as well. [Referring to listening to the s-9 during the time that he was also preparing the St. Matthew's Chamber Orchestra for a concert.]"

 And closing comments, "To me the S9s embody so many effective and unusual ideas that they unquestionably need to be heard and thought about. One might hope for a bit smoother mid/upper-mid/lower treble. But that aside, will the controlled radiation pattern and the associated approach to overall room sound seem as wonderfully natural to you as it did to me? Listen for yourself, and be sure that you listen positioned correctly. Then think about what live music really sounds like. I think you will come away as impressed as I did."

 He posted some further remarks and measurements on his webpage: http://regonaudio.com/NuForce%20S9%2...upplement.html
 Above 200hz, the THD barely peeks over 0.3% a couple times. Not too bad. He also claims (less clearly in the review than on his personal page) that the 2khz peak is basically easily fixed with eq.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Freeflier, you might be interested that that reviewer, math phd and prof. at UCLA, likes the tact, and that corner woofer idea. He actually espouses, for efficiency's sake, eq for the bass, dsp related or not, foam for the trebles because the short wavelengths make it impossible to digitally treat for any practical area, and mtm or line arrays for the best mids because they reduce floor/ceiling bounce. He's got interesting articles on his page.


----------



## music_man

i am still planning on hearing them. the dealer i was going to is in an area where there is a transportation issue. i may have to wait untill the construction in the neighborhood is over. 

 as far as the reviewers few nitpicks they do not put me off. i always sit in the sweet spot. i am coming to accept almost anything these days for what it is. i am starting to think you should only have expectations commensurate with a given products category. $4,500 speakers will not have to work nearly as hard to impress me as $45,000 speakers etc. either would probably be acceptable to me.

 likewise, you may notice i decided a $600 cambridge audio amplifier was pretty decent. that is in perspective. if that amplifier was $2,000 i would have been Disapointed. 

 same thing with tact. it does what it intends to. my original issues with it were personal not sonic. freeflier, i meant you no offense.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

i have heard the nuforce s-9's. they are not really my taste. they are very good speakers however. here is something noteworthy. if one has a room less than 250 square feet and likes the sound of the s-9's i think they might like the definitive technology pro monitor 1000's i mentioned earlier even more.

 this is along the lines of speakers that sound 5 times larger than they are and cast a "wall" of sound. i think the deftech's are "sweeter". i know that means coloration. i think they sound very good though. especially for $400. they sound too good for $400 actually. they go down to 42hz flat which is amazing for their size.

 i figured this out because after i listened to the s-9's i thought to myself "i remember those deftechs sounding like a smaller version of this". i think i was accurate in that assumption because i went back to listen to them. anyone else intrested in tiny speakers that sound 5 times their size should also imho.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Yes, I suppose you could say that they present in the big wall of sound way. I personally find that much closer to real life. I spent many months in the back of a viola section butted up against about 5 dbl basses behind me. This isn't that kind of wall of sound, imo. I don't know of anything that can replicate that with high fidelity. But more like the imaging I get when listening to a percussion concert in a small hall. Big swathes of sound. I've never heard pinpoint imaging in real life, only through speakers. For example, if I'm plucking on a guitar and there's some fret buzz, I can't tell right away where the fret buzz is coming from and it's less than 2 feet from my ears. I'd have to get that thing right next to my ears and I still might not be able to tell without a lot of trial and error. One of those aural illusion type things that speakers can do. Or maybe it's just my ears.

 I'm definitely very interested in the def techs, now.


----------



## music_man

i don't mean to set you up for a let down though. the deftechs are similar in sound signature and delivery. they just do not have quite as much "oomph" as the s-9's. consider them baby s-9's if you will. they fill a room with sound and throw the imaging tall and wide. they do not "pinpoint" very much at all. you cannot say, "that buzz is coming form right there". so if this is what you like, most of it can be had in a much smaller package for much less money.
 most of it that is. the fact that they sound as they do given their size is even more amazing than the s-9's i think. even though it is still "less" overall sound output. don't go into the store expecting the same exact thing. think "how close can they come for $400 and 1/8th the size of the s-9's".

 i personally thought it was amazing how much sound such small speakers could put out. this is with a sub of course. in 7.1 compared to b@se it was no contest whatsoever.

 it was a very big deal for me to hear the s-9's and i did not feel let down in the least. i just personally like my little focals better so far. if i could get the sf momentos to fit in here i'd be even happier. those do have very precise imaging though and do not really throw a giant soundstage. they are very intimate and different than the s-9 or deftech.

 one thing to keep in mind. all of deftechs other speakers seem to me to not be very good. it is only the pro monitor 1000's i care for. with a sub. preferably a rel sub. deftechs subs are boomy and will have you walking away thinking the speakers sucked. don't let that happen to you. they must also be setup right. that means not on a 6 foot shelf at magnolia.

 i heard them with a creek classic amp and they really sounded good to me. with sony or whatever i doubt they would do as good. they need a warm amp.

 if a deftech dealer is not out of your way i'd suggest you just go listen. if it is a big deal to get there i am just saying this is my observation,ymmv as always.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Yes, the imaging thing is a thing of great personal preference. A handful of years ago when I first started to pursue this hobby, I also wanted that laser imaging, but after comparing what I heard at home to the live music I heard back at school every day, I decided that they were two different things, what you hear live vs what you hear from precise imaging speakers, and I couldn't reconcile them. Other people may just want more of a good thing, i.e. precise imaging. I came to value overall presentation and dynamics more. I felt the s-9 made those banks of sound very similar to live music, as the TAS reviewer also mentioned.

 I look forward to hearing the deftechs, they seem like a bargain for home theater.


----------



## music_man

if it is not too much trouble for you could you go listen to them please? i'd like to know what someone else that knows about audio equipment thinks. or if i am crazy.

 they are not just ht speakers. they are serious 2 chan contendors. i would take these over a von vr1 anyday! no offense to anyone. that is personal preferance. i think to get a better speaker you'd have to go vr4jr. for instance. it still would not fill the room as big. the vr4jr. will be way more accurate though. look at the size difference. look at the price difference. maybe i am crazy. i'd like someone else to hear and let me know. well really i am not crazy, speakers are highly subjective anyways.

 like i said, make sure they are setup right. with a good warm amp. no denon or sony. rel sub at 42hz in the right place. speakers on stands. try to play dave mathews "crash" the whole cd. that is a great demo for wall of sound and these pull it off brilliantly imho. people seem to think because something is less expensive it must be trash. i did too untill i started actually hearing all this cheap stuff from china. as i also said, do not get talked into listening to other deftech's or their sub. that will ruin it for sure.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Will do, I'll give it a shot. I've become quite complacent when auditioning systems I don't plan on owning. If they don't really impress me in the ways I want to be impressed, I just say that they are ok, or don't say anything at all. Most speakers don't make me want to hand over my credit card right away. Just about any speakers are good enough to make music, if you know what I mean. I can get over the sound of the equipment and just enjoy the music, if I don't plan on forking over cash for it. I'd like to be impressed by the deftechs. If they are as good as you say, they could be a fair investment. Not any time soon, but I'll definitely put them on my list if they have the magic. I don't necessarily consider ht to be a step down from 2 channel. You can be distracted a lot more easily because of the picture, but the media being broadcast in HT situations can be just as demanding or more demanding than your average compressed like a pancake cd. In fact, voice is probably the sound we are most intimately familiar with, and HT's got plenty of that, so it really needs to get the fundamentals down. At $400, the deftechs aren't chump change, but neither are they in the heavy hitters camp. We'll see. Maybe I can swing a visit to a local dealer this week.

 Interesting you bring up the vr4jr. I hope to hear them again soon in my friend's new room. Not that he did any special treatment or setup, but the room is fairly large, gives some good room to breathe.


----------



## ooheadsoo

I heard the little deftechs. Not bad for the size, really not bad. They're very reasonably sized. I don't feel qualified them to my impressions of the S-9. I heard them in a roughly 30'x100'x15' room, and the images they cast were fitting for the size of that room. BIG. I heard the deftechs in a small 10'x10'x8' room with only 3 corners. Worst of all, I forgot to bring my own music along. Voices seemed fine in tonal coloration. Piano was very fine. Strings seemed to have some odd coloration, and I didn't hear anything that had strong bass. Definitely no pinpoint imaging, but I'm not sure by any means that it's the same effect as what I got with the s-9. I'll probably go hear it again. Definitely not bad for the size, I liked that.


----------



## music_man

keep three things in mind for the little deftechs. 1,room: say 15x13 four walls. 2,good sub not a deftech one. 3, the deftechs are $400 the s-9's are $4,500!

 in all honesty i could own the deftechs to compliment my focals. the focals are very precise and accurate. the deftechs have huge sound for a speaker that size and they arent sloppy,flabby or bloated. i am telling you with the little rel 8"($750) sub set to 42hz in a 220sf room they sounded like the s-9's which were in a 1400sf room.

 i'd like to hear them with the cambridge amp we are discussing in another thread. i only heard them with a creek. they sounded pretty good but with the sub now we are at $4,000 with a source. still that is a entire stereo system for that price not just speakers.

 of course the cambridge thread has turned into a crapping match so i don't know if anyone will step up and say how it sounds. i know it is warm and these speakers are very efficient so it might be great.

 one last thing, make sure the speakers are placed right(on weighted stands) when you listen to them again. also very important! make sure that the plastic base of the speakers have the rubber stick on "feet" applied. if they are coupled to the stand they sound bad.

 see, you did not even hear them set up nearly right and you thought they were ok. wait to you hear what they really can do. i am very impressed for $400. i really think it is the polymer housing and radiator done right that is working here.

 try to get them to set them up right with a sub before you go to the dealer if you can. i first heard them at magnolia and thought they were ok. then a high end dealer got a used pair once and set them up right and it was a whole different story.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Fwiw, they were set up on decent stands with the rubber feet on, and about 3 feet from front and side walls. The room had 4 walls but only 3 corners. They did not strike me as being very close in league with the s-9, but yes, they were excellent, especially for the size. The image did not detach from the speakers and hang in the air like the s-9. I am not a good judge of price/value. I fully admit that I feel my judgements regarding many things are worthless if I don't do A/B comparison. Unlike some, I admit my aural memory is roughly on par with what psychoacousticians say the average person has. Btw, the dealer I went to was willing to budge on the price, that may make things even sweeter. Of course, the prices are probably even better online.

 On a side note, I just set up my old 2 way bookshelves (diy, called mbow1, cost me around $600 in parts, but can be done closer to $450 in parts if on a tight budget) and am quite satisfied with the sound when coupled to a small LG dvd mini system. I didn't recall them being so dynamic, but I am impressed with them, all over again. A bit on the bright side, the mini system is nothing to write home about - I'm tempted to say it's quite horrible, but I have managed to tweak it into sounding half decent. So I probably won't be getting the deftechs any time soon, but I'll see about auditioning them again. I just feel bad stepping in and out of the showroom without intent to buy.


----------



## ooheadsoo

Musicman, I don't consider the deftech and the s-9 to be in the same league. Maybe this is one small point that will help explain why. Consider that the s-9 is rated to 42hz. Now consider that the deftech is rated to 47hz. However, to get full bass realism, you wanted to connect a rel subwoofer to the deftechs. I, on the other hand, don't think that the s-9 need a subwoofer at all except for the demanding HT or organ enthusiast. On paper, their bass frequencies are separated by a mere 5hz in the mid 40s. In actual sound, their presentation are not that close, imo.

 I would replace my mains with the s-9 in a heartbeat. The deftechs did not do that for me. They are _very_ impressive for their size, but imo, not s-9 caliber. How do they stack against your focals?

 Ok, so deftech doesn't specify the -10 point for the 47hz number, but it's not unreasonable. It certainly puts out much more well behaved bass than you would expect it to.


----------



## music_man

the deftechs are not as good as the s-9's. they are not as good as my focals either. they are $400 not $4,500! i was simply pointing out that they are miles beyond their actual price. let's say they 'could' sell for $1,000. i think they could. however from $1,000 to $4,500 is a big difference.

 i don't think you would like they focals. for the reason i don't like the s-9's as much. you and i have different tastes in this regard. this is highly subjective stuff. i doubt anyone that knows what they were listening to would pick the deftechs over the nuforce's or the focal's. i do think they(deftech) can compete with the vr-1's. which is a pretty big feat given their price and size. then again, of course that is biased since i don't really like the vr-1 and think it is overpriced. this will be one of many ongoing areas where chesebert and i disagree.

 the focals have a tight sweet spot and cast an intimate soundstage. they are rather "sterile","clinical", unremarkable. quite the opposite of the s-9's(that grow into these 10 foot monsters). that is all i meant the deftechs have in common with the s-9's. they put out much more sound then their size would suggest. the s-9's are much larger speakers than the deftechs that put out much more sound than their size would suggest. i see some of the deftech in the s-9's. just better, more refined and more polished all the way around. again, $4,500 vs. $400. use your imigination to hear the similar sonic signature hidden in there somewhere.

 i really like the momentos since they are a combination of both what the s-9 and the focal do. they add what i think is a delicious flavor to almost any receipe. that means colorization though. if you want pure and natural forget these. they impart their beauty on any well made recording. the strings are especially amazing to me. besides their price(13 grand) i don't have room for them where i'd want them anyways.

 so i am keeping my focals for the moment. probably quite a while. i am "rolling" integrated amps which is getting darn expensive. i loose my shirt everytime i trade in. per my other thread i think the focals could be happy with a cambridge 840a, i could cut my losses already and call it a day. 

 anyways, i never meant to say the deftechs were by any means high end speakers. i meant they are a very good value. upper mid-fi at lower mid-fi prices i'd say. i suggested to anyone that liked the s-9 type presentation and could not afford them maybe they could settle for the deftechs while they save up or whatever.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

I think your description of the s-9 growing into 10 foot monsters is quite apt. The deftechs have a very strong hint of that. The package is really quite attractive, as well. Solid cabs, nice gloss, integrated grill. They're almost the size of satellite speakers like the klipsch multimedia satellites, maybe around the size of those popular swan or whatever multimedia speakers. That is what I find most impressive. I'll take your word that they are competetive with $1k speakers. I don't remember the sound of any impressive ones off hand. For well under $400 after a bargaining session or online, I suppose it really IS a good deal. If I were stuck with a system of that size, I think they would be front runners.


----------



## akwok

Hi everyone,

 I don't know if this is the right place to post this (I searched for Guarneri) -- but has anyone heard the Sonus Faber Guarneri Memento? I'm thinking of quitting Head-Fi soon, and going with speakers.. I'm stuck between the old Amati Homage and the new Guarneri Memento.

 I guess it's time to go to audio shops and listen..

 -Adrian


----------



## music_man

oh man. lol. read this whole thread. the memento's where what was mostly discussed by me.

 i think they are very special speakers. the price is not what is stopping me either. it is my wanting to put them on a nightstand which would be a waste. they must be on their stands. well, go read the whole post 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 music_man


----------



## akwok

Ah. I searched the thread for Guarneri and Memento but nothing came up -- you mentioned them as Momentos instead! (same mistake I made trying to search for them initially).

 My bad. I will be reading the rest of your posts now..

 Hopefully a Guarneri M is put up for sale used soon.


----------



## music_man

did i spell it with an 'o' over and over again? duh. sorry.

 i mentioned them in several posts at least in this thread. i wonder how much used ones would cost? i would only want them if they were in perfect condition. the looks is half their allure.

 like i said, the big thing is they must be on their original bases. if you buy used make sure they come with the stands. they are right now my favorite "small" speakers.

 music_man


----------



## akwok

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_did i spell it with an 'o' over and over again? duh. sorry.

 i mentioned them in several posts at least in this thread. i wonder how much used ones would cost? i would only want them if they were in perfect condition. the looks is half their allure.

 like i said, the big thing is they must be on their original bases. if you buy used make sure they come with the stands. they are right now my favorite "small" speakers.

 music_man_

 

Most definitely. My uncle has told me about the speaker stands.. big difference, eh.

 There's a pair of Guarneri Homage (not Memento) on Audiogon right now, but it's not cheap. 4300 EUR, which is about $5500 USD. Hopefully a Memento will pop up for $6500-$7500, but I doubt it.

 The MSRP is $13,000 a pair, but do you think it'll be available for significantly less from an audio shop? 

 -Adrian


----------



## music_man

i have realised that within a line of well designed highend speakers the larger models with larger and more driver compliments do much more than simply provide "more" sound for larger rooms.

 the larger models have a much greater soundstage and one can simply hear more "material".

 therefore, considering that the mementos must be on their stands and that their price is already in the upper realm(for their size) the stradivari comes into the picture.

 well, i heard them. they take what i like best about my wilsons and apogees and allow you to hear all that at one time. and more.

 back to reality though. i think bookshelf speakers in general do not present as much information or the complete sonic landscape in the capacity that larger volume cabinets with more and larger drivers can. even with sub sat systems i find a lot is missing. there is only so much that can be done within the space constraints. period. unless you wish to attempt a novel design and fail, ala bose. of course given limited space, music is better than no music! bookshelf speakers can be quite pleasing. even amazing. as are the mementos. untill you hear their big brothers. then you see all that is missing.

 that is why in the studio we have nearfield monitors and main monitors.
 the nearfields are accurate at close range but never present the entire "picture".

 this does not apply to designs that are rather poor of course. case in point: the exact opposite is true(imo) with the deftech line. the little ones i mention herein are by far their best effort. their larger offerings fall way short. especially for the money. just bloated boomy home theater f@rt cannons.
 that is just my opinion,ymmv.

 as to the s-9's they have a presence that belies their size. they play loud and hard. they are not a fine art type of speaker though(imo). they would make good studio monitors or sorts. the stradivari's are the sonic equivalent of watching van gogh make your very own painting just for you. 

 i guess if you figure the bigger wilsons or the grand utopia the sonus fabers are a bargain of sorts 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 music_man


----------



## music_man

i hope you guys are still reading this because i didn't see the need to start a new thread.

 can anyone name any really high end speakers that are less than: 7x10x14/w-d-h,inches.

 i find plenty slightly bigger but none that small. thanks for the help guys!

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

It's too bad diy is out of the picture. 

http://zaphaudio.com/ZD5.html

 If you were willing to do that, you could probably build this sealed design with the dimensions you wanted without losing much bass. I suppose there's no telling if it would meet your taste test. I don't know of any commercial speakers off hand that are supposed to be that high end at that size. 

 Are you still thinking about those SFs?


----------



## music_man

i think the sonus fabers are really good speakers but they are too big for my table. as we discussed they also need to be on their stands anyhow.

 i wish some company made something half that size with comparable sound.
 or even something 1/4 the size of the s-9's with comparable sound.

 i guess it is physically impossible to make that much(quality) sound come from such a small cabinet. deftech did an admirable job but it is no where near high end. the vienna haydns that get rave reviews are not all that much better either. there must simply be limitations from box size at some point. the haydns have more mid bass than the deftechs even though it is kind of bloated. it does "chuff" even with their fancy front port design. plus the very high end is chopped off. as i said before the deftechs sounded better to me than the haydn's.

 i am looking for higher end than that anyways if it exists. i know that sf makes the concertino(i had owned them). those are no where near the mementos. they are much smaller.
 i take it it just cannot be done at that size or they would go ahead and do it.

 i might have hit the wall regarding size factor with my focals. they may be the highest end you can go in a small cabinet. they are faithfull to the recording. they are not really fun though. i wanted pretty fun for this application.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

tonite i finally discovered why the focals have me looking for new mini monitors. the focals are too precise! most of my recordings are too crummy and the focals really let you know this.

 i played some neil diamond cd's and realised the focals are more than good enough speakers for my bedroom. mr. diamond's recordings are notorious for their engineering quality. same deal with flim. but i like vocals. thanks mr. diamond. you let me know the true resolution of the focals and save me some money.

 if all the recordings are lousy so be it. you don't stick bondo on a bentley. the speakers are fine. i bet anything else this size is a colorful downgrade.

 to those that might not agree, remember i am not pushing much volume at all. they will get out of breath quickily but not in my hands.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

i havent been listening to my cans lately. i intend to start again now.

 anyways, i have had the guarneri's on in home audition for a week. i was not messing around, i would have bought them. had i liked them much. i realised i do not now. they are very dark,syrupy smooth and veiled. if you like a big dose of mid bass that is very colored they may be for you. not for me. i had them on their stands in a proper room. well i am sending them back. that does not mean others would not love them. it just goes to show a purchase like that needs some time getting to know it before you leap in.

 so all i said in the post above still stands true. the focals are clear and true to the recording. which is what i prefer. i figure most audiophile types might really like the sonus fabers. i am used to studio monitors and the focals feel like home.

 now i am going to go listen to some of my headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 music_man


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i havent been listening to my cans lately. i intend to start again now.

 anyways, i have had the guarneri's on in home audition for a week. i was not messing around, i would have bought them. had i liked them much. i realised i do not now. they are very dark,syrupy smooth and veiled. if you like a big dose of mid bass that is very colored they may be for you. not for me. i had them on their stands in a proper room. well i am sending them back. that does not mean others would not love them. it just goes to show a purchase like that needs some time getting to know it before you leap in.

 so all i said in the post above still stands true. the focals are clear and true to the recording. which is what i prefer. i figure most audiophile types might really like the sonus fabers. i am used to studio monitors and the focals feel like home.

 now i am going to go listen to some of my headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 music_man_

 

good read. Although home testing will get really hard if you want to compare Wilson max to SF Strat 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I wish there is an easier way.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *akwok* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Most definitely. My uncle has told me about the speaker stands.. big difference, eh.

 There's a pair of Guarneri Homage (not Memento) on Audiogon right now, but it's not cheap. 4300 EUR, which is about $5500 USD. Hopefully a Memento will pop up for $6500-$7500, but I doubt it.

 The MSRP is $13,000 a pair, but do you think it'll be available for significantly less from an audio shop? 

 -Adrian_

 


 I have heard both and they are very special speakers. The Memento is very musical and coherent. I think its a bit more detailed than the Homage. I would suggest you check audiogon forums. There are some threads there.


----------



## music_man

i do think the memento is very musical. i do not think it is coherent at all.
 it adds a very distinct flavor to every one of the over 60 cd's i played on them. they are bass heavy and highly colored/dark/veiled. thats what i hear, ymmv.

 it just goes to show how subjective playback devices are. especially speakers and headphones. one mans bronze is another mans gold. i couldn't be happy with the mementos.

 i really like the deftechs i mentioned and would like to own them. i keep telling myself i am kidding myself. $400 speakers cannot possibly be any good and i should be ashamed for thinking so. that is not only snobbish it is stupid. if i like them why shouldn't i get them? it matters what i/you like not what someone else likes or says.

 to make matters worse i have never seen a magazine give a bad review of speakers. hometheater which is the sister mag of stereophile called the deftechs "amazing". they are just not thought of as being used for music. i'd agree that their bipoles are strictly for ht. the promon1000's are really good at music. i know it is stupid i am going from $13,000 speakers one week to $400 ones the next. i truly think in this market price is not a direct indicator of what one person may like. for instance the paradigms and von vr-1 that chesebert likes i don't like at all.

 also i'd mention sixmoons even let me down yesterday. i went to hear speakers that they said were like $5,000 but priced at $900 and honestly i think they sounded like $10 computer speakers.

 i say just pick the ones you like regardless of price and be done. they are not headphones most people don't have room for 20 pairs. i'm pretty happy with my focals. i don't really know i am constantly looking for a better sound. the focals are a lot like the wilsons. very precise. true to what was recorded.

 i will say the cabinets on the mementos are nothing short of amazing. my ears just didn't dig the sound. i didn't even look at the stradivari's. 40 grand is a lot of cabbage. i couldn't get them here easily anyways.

 music_man


----------



## chesebert

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i say just pick the ones you like regardless of price and be done. they are not headphones most people don't have room for 20 pairs. i'm pretty happy with my focals. i don't really know i am constantly looking for a better sound. the focals are a lot like the wilsons. very precise. true to what was recorded._

 

that's wisdom 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 The only semi objective standard is the stereophile recommended component list and even that is not objective, I really look at the component with the "$$$" next to them. I have not been disappointed by those component yet, well besides the Paradigm S2, but I think that's a taste thing as it does have all the parameters right.


----------



## Dimitris

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i do think the memento is very musical. i do not think it is coherent at all.
 it adds a very distinct flavor to every one of the over 60 cd's i played on them. they are bass heavy and highly colored/dark/veiled. thats what i hear, ymmv.

 it just goes to show how subjective playback devices are. especially speakers and headphones. one mans bronze is another mans gold. i couldn't be happy with the mementos.

 i really like the deftechs i mentioned and would like to own them. i keep telling myself i am kidding myself. $400 speakers cannot possibly be any good and i should be ashamed for thinking so. that is not only snobbish it is stupid. if i like them why shouldn't i get them? it matters what i/you like not what someone else likes or says.

 to make matters worse i have never seen a magazine give a bad review of speakers. hometheater which is the sister mag of stereophile called the deftechs "amazing". they are just not thought of as being used for music. i'd agree that their bipoles are strictly for ht. the promon1000's are really good at music. i know it is stupid i am going from $13,000 speakers one week to $400 ones the next. i truly think in this market price is not a direct indicator of what one person may like. for instance the paradigms and von vr-1 that chesebert likes i don't like at all.

 also i'd mention sixmoons even let me down yesterday. i went to hear speakers that they said were like $5,000 but priced at $900 and honestly i think they sounded like $10 computer speakers.

 i say just pick the ones you like regardless of price and be done. they are not headphones most people don't have room for 20 pairs. i'm pretty happy with my focals. i don't really know i am constantly looking for a better sound. the focals are a lot like the wilsons. very precise. true to what was recorded.

 i will say the cabinets on the mementos are nothing short of amazing. my ears just didn't dig the sound. i didn't even look at the stradivari's. 40 grand is a lot of cabbage. i couldn't get them here easily anyways.

 music_man_

 

What equipment are you using with the Mementos?I have never read a bad review about them.


----------



## music_man

i was using the little krell. i didn't say they were "bad". i said they had a strong "flavor" and it was not my personal taste. i personally do not hear them as being neutral whatsoever. they impart their color/flavor to every recording. that is of course, imo. as always ymmv. i doubt it was my electronics the krell is very neutral. of course one could make an arguement about a $2,600 amp powering $13,000 speakers. still. i think it was good enough to get an idea.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

you know what guys? the va haydn grand have really grown on me. because i home auditioned them. the guy said "if you don't like the mementos, try the auditors. wait, try the haydns."

 they are highly colored. not true to the original recording at all. but in a way that i actually like. i never thought i'd like a speaker/source that does not reproduce a true facsimile of what is on the recording. 

 what really gets me about them is the "prat". these things are smooth and lighting fast. they add "boogie woogie" to every thing. if these things don't make you snap your fingers and tap your toes i don't know what will. the soundstage is small and tight. not what i usually like but they just grew on me.

 i know i had mentioned that some $400 speakers had them beat but you know honestly auditioning stuff in a crowded store and at home is two different scenarios. hifi magazine comapred them to the auditor and my utopia be. others have liked them better than the utopia be and i think i might have found a new speaker myself! it is a realitive "bargain" to boot at $1,400usd(pair).

 you might have the same experience with them as i did in a store. so if you are serious do yourself a favor and take them home.
 i think i will call the store and tell them i am keeping them in a couple more days and be done for a while in the loudspeaker department.

 the only draw back is they are bigger then they look once home. the speakers,krell and sony cdp take up my 6' dresser end to end. the veneer on them is top notch though. these are more in the class of sonus faber(cabinet and sound wise) then vons.

 music_man


----------



## music_man

i was wrong again. the va's do not have the micro utopia be's beat for me. that be tweeter is just so clear and revealing. plus the utopias are punchier.

 i do like the dynaudio special 25's but they are too big for me.
 well, this is like "the grass is always greener on the other side". i think i will stop looking at this point and just be content.

 i just wanted to comment on something i think mysticaldodo(don't quote me) might have said. i think he said the haydn grands got boomy against a wall even though they are front ported. they were at first and i was largely taken aback by that. however, just as the manual states with 30 hours of break in that dissapeared and a lot of good sound appeared. still, they just didn't please me as do the utopias. i guess thats it.

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Hate to bring this up, but SP Tech has a new "Mini" out that just might fit your bill, music_man.

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/i...?topic=43286.0
http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls....oni&1190212596

 I'm sure you could also get it in any finish you wanted, with the right money.
 From what I know about this speaker, the highs should cream the last speaker I recommended in the old thread because of the much higher end tweeter used in SP Tech's own products, and that other speaker still sounded great, to me. Too bad the Mini is direct sold, only, for the time being. And so, I know you won't be interested in hearing them. Anyway, for the way my tastes run, I thought it was exciting enough to mention, given your need for a small speaker. And the price is certainly right, until it goes dealer wide.

 abe


----------



## music_man

thanks for letting me know.

 i won't buy something i cannot hear first. if at some point i can hear them i will go do so.

 edit: hmm. i didn't look at the link first. those seem darn inexpensive just judging from their looks alone!

 music_man


----------



## ooheadsoo

Yes, the current price is killer, although the special ends today, and the lead time is already 8 weeks. Even when the special price ends, it's still a great price, imo, for the engineering you get. I think the price is going circa $2k when it goes dealer wide. They do have the 30-day return policy, but I know you don't like to take advantage of that. Besides, it's a hassle to ship back when each speaker weighs about 40lbs.


----------

