Audio Research Ref system
- Thread starter Big Dog RJ
- Start date
LLoyd, an interesting observation of the differences between Strads and G's. I do think that the Strads in a BIG room will easily have more scale and authority than G's. However, if one matches up G's with a good sub, which I think is mandatory in order to get anything below about 50hz, then the scales tip back to the G's, IMO. I think the G's and particularly my GH's are more coherent and slightly cleaner with better delineation up top than the Strads and with a sub, as stated, more revealing.
Hi Davey, I hear you. AT the time, I owned the Guarneris with Velodyne DD18. I see where you are coming from, and acknowledge my own understanding of the Velodyne has improved a lot over the years of owning one and fine-tuning its settings (as well as adding subsequent isolation). That said, my own system with G + Velodyne DD18 vs Strad + Velodyne gave me a scale across the lower mids and upper bass I was not able to replicate with my Gs. I did not honestly appreciate this difference until after the Strads were formally setup in my system, and I spent several days really running it thru its paces.
I certainly did not sense any lack with my Gs...but of course, they were gone by the time I had the Strads installed. The shootout had occurred in the Dealer's room...but with pre-specified electronics I knew, and in the dem room I had used for so many years.
That said, I think where I have focused most of my efforts over the last years has been effortlessness and scale. The Wilson took that to another level, as has all the isolation, grounding. I don't mean loud although I will occasionally crank the volume...I mean at even low volumes, the sense of space is broadened greatly in my room by the Strads or the Wilsons over the Gs. That said, the room is 17x33x8...in a smaller room, I cannot say what would happen to scale in both systems.
What I CAN say is that the G + Velodyne is surely a magical combination...and it was only my search for pure effortless scale after hearing well-setup systems (like the dealer's X1s) that got me pushing further out to hear what was possible. Furthermore, with respect to slightly cleaner upper mids and mids in the Gs...I would agree with you on that. No matter how good my Strads sounded, there IS a sense of delicate detail that I found in the G which either was masked by scale in the Strads...or was simply not there. I used to think that it was the addition of all the other elements of the musical delivery that fooled my ear into hearing a different presentation where that clarity was not as apparent...but perhaps you are right and it was simply not there. I was so happy listening to music...I never got around to finding the truth in that query.
Perhaps I have been not able to perform the proper setup, and was unlucky listening to others systems, but I never listened to a mini-monitor / subwoofer system that could have the scale of large speakers. Subs can add some extra global volume and weight, but they do not seem to create the proper size of individual sections of an orchestra and fail on the explosive dynamics of a symphony.
I have however found that systems using full range speakers can really benefit from subwoofers - as some people say you should only use them with speakers that theoretically do not need them!
My dream system would be a nice looking mini monitor - Magico Mini II, B&W Silver Signature or SF Guarneri using a subwoofer system and having the scale of the SoundLabs's A1PX, Alexandria or Aida's, even of the Alexia's. But it seems such system does not exist.
IMHO curiously the Guarneri do not show their best in near filed. However the B&W Silver Signature SS25 http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/272 positioned around 6 feet from the listener in a equilateral triangle are really astonishing - the soundstage expands with pin point accuracy and great delicacy. The effect is particularly noticeable with the old B&W demo recordings - the first movement of Also Sprach Zarathustra was great, as the whole orchestra spreads out of room. These 20 years old speakers also love the Beatles recordings.
I think the G's work exceptionally well in the near field. However, like any speaker, they have to be set up correctly and they benefit greatly from room acoustic treatments. I do agree that in a large room, one can get a better sense of scale from large speakers than from small speakers. BUT the room has to be large enough to support the speaker and the scale...seems obvious, but it really isn't as easy as one might think. I have heard numerous large speakers in rooms that are too large for them, even though these same rooms would seem correctly sized to support the speaker in question ( the result is usually a lack of intimacy and definition, IME). The alternate is also NOT good, IMO...a large speaker in a small room.
As to the size of the room, I am now of the opinion that a small room that is intimate sounding, supporting a small speaker with a sub that is correctly dialed in...plus listening in the near field; is actually preferable to a large room with a large speaker that lacks these attributes. If I cannot easily hear the smallest/delicate of details, then that's not preferable...to me.
As to the size of the room, I am now of the opinion that a small room that is intimate sounding, supporting a small speaker with a sub that is correctly dialed in...plus listening in the near field; is actually preferable to a large room with a large speaker that lacks these attributes. If I cannot easily hear the smallest/delicate of details, then that's not preferable...to me.
Last edited:
I think this setting is the only way that small (mini-monitors?) speakers and subs might be able to reproduce the large scale to which you refer, but as you imply it still depends on the specific speakers. The KEF LS50's might be another good candidate.
Look, let's not kid ourselves here no matter how some wish it to be true about mini-monitors pulling off feats of magic in small rooms vice large systems in large(r) rooms. Assuming both systems are set up correctly, a large system in the proper sized room is going to do things that mini-monitors even with subs just can't pull off. The scale of the soundstage in all dimensions will be smaller, and the midbass and upper bass will certainly be lacking in power by comparison.
As for the LS50 speakers which I owned along with custom made Sound Anchor stands, they are damn good speakers (for their size) and give you more than a taste of what high-end sound is all about. I used them with a pair of Def Tech Ref subs and I had the bottom octave covered. What I didn't have covered was the power that lies in the mid to upper bass because the LS50s just don't have it no matter what people try and tell you. Part of the reason why I think the LS50s sound so clean is the fact they are omitting bass information that would trip them up. And I was feeding the LS50s with my Krell KSA-250 from my KRC-HR and I hope nobody wants to argue about the bass capabilities of the Krell. The Paradigm Mini-Monitor v3 speakers that I'm using now while I'm waiting for my Nola KOs to arrive have much more mid and upper bass than the LS50s simply because the 'bass' driver and cabinet are much larger than the LS50s.
In summary, a large scale speaker system set up correctly in a proper sized room is going to whoop ass on a pair of mini-monitors (and I don't care who makes them). You can fool yourself and think that the sound you are getting in a small room with a small system is just as good as a large system in a large room, but the reality is that you are listening to a small system in a small room that isn't moving much air. Moving lots of air is a key ingredient to true realism.
As for the LS50 speakers which I owned along with custom made Sound Anchor stands, they are damn good speakers (for their size) and give you more than a taste of what high-end sound is all about. I used them with a pair of Def Tech Ref subs and I had the bottom octave covered. What I didn't have covered was the power that lies in the mid to upper bass because the LS50s just don't have it no matter what people try and tell you. Part of the reason why I think the LS50s sound so clean is the fact they are omitting bass information that would trip them up. And I was feeding the LS50s with my Krell KSA-250 from my KRC-HR and I hope nobody wants to argue about the bass capabilities of the Krell. The Paradigm Mini-Monitor v3 speakers that I'm using now while I'm waiting for my Nola KOs to arrive have much more mid and upper bass than the LS50s simply because the 'bass' driver and cabinet are much larger than the LS50s.
In summary, a large scale speaker system set up correctly in a proper sized room is going to whoop ass on a pair of mini-monitors (and I don't care who makes them). You can fool yourself and think that the sound you are getting in a small room with a small system is just as good as a large system in a large room, but the reality is that you are listening to a small system in a small room that isn't moving much air. Moving lots of air is a key ingredient to true realism.
I have found this to be true also. However, I have heard the large Magico Q7 and the mighty Wilson XLF in very well designed rooms with great amplification. Sure the scale was large and the sound was dynamic, but the imaging was also large, and in fact I found it unnaturally so. Vocals came from HUGE heads, stand up bass was the size of a piano. These systems sounded great for large scale orchestral music, but for smaller chamber or solo acoustic music, it just was not believable. Perhaps it was the systems and set ups, but for smaller scale music, I prefer a high quality mini monitor based system, especially in smaller rooms.
It's not supposed to sound that way which indicates something was amiss in the setup. People who own the big Wilson speakers talk about how they correctly scale image sizes in accordance with the recording. If your system produces "Fat Head" sized images on every recording with speakers that are known not to do that, you need to put on your Sherlock Holmes hat and grab your pipe and start investigating.
The Q7 driven by Spectral at the local dealer clearly has the ability to sound small, big and anything in between, including properly sized vocals and instruments - I haven't heard such things as "huge heads", in fact, just the right size - and I have commented about this in past postings in detail.
Well, I did hear it on that day. And I was quite surprised, having high expectations for an incredible system. As I wrote earlier, perhaps it was the set up. It could also have been amps not being broken in or the phase switches on the MIT cable boxes. I only listened to a few familiar recordings, and they did not sound right to me. In the same room, for instance, the Q3 sounded much more real and convincing with better sized images. So yes, I would agree with you that something was probably amiss with the set up of the Q7. I don't know about the XLF, but perhaps something was wrong there too.
However, in my experience from hearing many systems in many locations, in general, I still think the systems based on larger speakers tend to sound less coherent and often have larger than life images on small scale music than the systems I've heard with smaller speakers properly set up. It just my experience. I'm sure large speakers can do it too, I just have not heard it done very often.
Last edited:
These weren't my systems, and I would not have felt comfortable asking why they did not sound right to me. And I'm no Sherlock Holmes. They were presented as reference caliber systems. I was just not expecting them to sound that way. I agree and I've read that Wilson owners describe the large Alexandrias as correctly portraying scale and image sizes in accordance with the recordings. You are probably right that something was amiss in the set ups and perhaps they will reproduce image size the way a really good small speaker can.
These were very large professionally designed rooms with high ceilings. I've seen photos of forum members' Alexandrias in rooms with very low ceilings, say 7'-6" or 8'-0" high. Perhaps the lower ceilings have something to do with it.
It's no big deal. You just politely say "How come the image size of your singers is as big as those Fat Heads I see fans use at basketball games to distract the opposing team when they shoot foul shots?"
I would agree that moving lots of air is a key ingredient to true realism...of the bass end of the spectrum. Do you NOT think that a decent sub can move lots of air?
I suspect the problem is not so much how much air that can be moved, BUT the length of the sound wave as the freq drops.
OK Joe, so there you have it by the experts!
They all seem to agree that the Strads are way better than Elipsa's, and the Magico's are still better and then the ultimate is the Wilson. And Quad is not for you. What next a gold plated Ferrari... yea the Sultan of Brunei has one.
Whatever people say on this forum may hold true to their experience only. It is by far as good as reading an article from TAS or Stereophile. The one and only judge that can make the final decision is YOUR ears and no one else's.
The Strads better be dam good compared to Elipsa's and so on with Magico's and Wilsons because they double and triple in price. In Australia the prices are crazy over the top compared to the US. A new pair of Strads are going for anything between 40 to 45 grand. The Elipsa is around 20/25 grand. ARCRef 75 now is retailing for 11 grand. A pair of Magico's are going for 60/80 grand and the mighty Wilson's are around 140 grand average. Even Quads retail for 16 to 22 grand. Considering the pricing we get here compared to what you can actually spend, you can get very good quality sound for sensible spending without going nuts.
Hence, my experience with the MC275 and Elipsa was very pleasing. Of course the Strads are better, but them a MC275 wouldn't do it. Here you would need to upgrade to a few notches to get the best from the Strads, and so now we would be talking of anything in excess of 20grand just for amplification in Australia.
So the two people who bought Strads, yes they did make a mistake buying them because they obviously didn't have the right amplification, which is a shame and happens often in high-end audio. That's why they regret it, and they cannot dump more money just to upgrade amplification. They thought the Strads would make them happy, but when they listened to my humble c-j Quad system they felt ripped off. So that was my point.
Since I can clearly see that you don't seem to have any issues with finances, and now you have the best c-j amplification, ok might as well go for the Strads. In that case why not the 150 grand ultra high-end stuff? Whatever floats your boat go for it.
I am sure you will enjoy your music with the c-j combo.
All the best! RJ
They all seem to agree that the Strads are way better than Elipsa's, and the Magico's are still better and then the ultimate is the Wilson. And Quad is not for you. What next a gold plated Ferrari... yea the Sultan of Brunei has one.
Whatever people say on this forum may hold true to their experience only. It is by far as good as reading an article from TAS or Stereophile. The one and only judge that can make the final decision is YOUR ears and no one else's.
The Strads better be dam good compared to Elipsa's and so on with Magico's and Wilsons because they double and triple in price. In Australia the prices are crazy over the top compared to the US. A new pair of Strads are going for anything between 40 to 45 grand. The Elipsa is around 20/25 grand. ARCRef 75 now is retailing for 11 grand. A pair of Magico's are going for 60/80 grand and the mighty Wilson's are around 140 grand average. Even Quads retail for 16 to 22 grand. Considering the pricing we get here compared to what you can actually spend, you can get very good quality sound for sensible spending without going nuts.
Hence, my experience with the MC275 and Elipsa was very pleasing. Of course the Strads are better, but them a MC275 wouldn't do it. Here you would need to upgrade to a few notches to get the best from the Strads, and so now we would be talking of anything in excess of 20grand just for amplification in Australia.
So the two people who bought Strads, yes they did make a mistake buying them because they obviously didn't have the right amplification, which is a shame and happens often in high-end audio. That's why they regret it, and they cannot dump more money just to upgrade amplification. They thought the Strads would make them happy, but when they listened to my humble c-j Quad system they felt ripped off. So that was my point.
Since I can clearly see that you don't seem to have any issues with finances, and now you have the best c-j amplification, ok might as well go for the Strads. In that case why not the 150 grand ultra high-end stuff? Whatever floats your boat go for it.
I am sure you will enjoy your music with the c-j combo.
All the best! RJ
Hi there Joe,
Yes, your decisions will be crucial since you already have one of the BEST in pre/power amplification. Like I said before, if I had those c-j amps, everything else is out the window...
The people on this forum are very well experienced, and obviously have some of the best gear money can buy. They have also helped me a lot in nearly all my recent decisions as not to jump into unnecessary purchases, which I have a tendency to do so and then either regret or get my fingers burnt...
All I can say is: since you have one of or probably the best value in c-j amplification that is truly musical, the speakers you want to match with this c-j combination must satisfy you over at least 90% of what you listen to. In other words there really is no speaker in the world that is going to be the overall "best sounding transducer."
Therefore, the best or safest decision in my experience is to go for something that reproduces what you generally listen to most of the time as accurately as possible towards the absolute sound.
Once you achieve that you will really enjoy your music and NOT the system.
In all the countries I have travelled and lived, I know many audiophiles who have spent colossal amounts of money on various systems, and continue to buy far too many components it's absolutely crazy and never ending. What they didn't realize is that the system they had in the first place is the one that gave them the most satisfaction!
Someday soon, I do hope to proudly own an ART series amplifier from c-j, they are truly very special amps that have been carefully thought out and well designed.
Enjoy that music and yes high end does exist!
Oh! BTW The chap at ARC wants me to come in tomorrow late noon and have a listen to the new ARCREF 250's with Strads; I'll let you know what I think. I'll probably take in a few CD's of mine since I already know the RefCD9 and Ref5SE pre very well.
Cheers mate, & have a good one.
RJ
Similar threads
