Could you talk about the differences beteeen the Harbeth you had and the new Graham speakers. They are both cut from the same cloth in many ways but seems the Harbeth could have a stronger bottom end.
Graham Audio LS8/1 Signature Edition & a New System
- Thread starter tmallin
- Start date
I had the Harbeth M40.2 speakers in this same room a few years back. Those speakers do have more extended bass and in this room measured flat to 20 Hz. Even organ spectaculars had full weight and power in the bottom octave.
The big Harbeth's bass was also warmer than that of the Graham. It needed EQ via the DSPeaker X4 digital equalizer I was using at the time to reduce peaks in the midbass. It also benefited from a bit of EQ to reduce the midrange level around 800 - 1000 Hz.
The Harbeth speakers are very coherent for large three-ways. They can be listened to in the near field, as close as 20 inches away if you are careful to listen at the correct height with respect to the tweeter (listen 1 to 2 inches below the tweeter centers) without hearing out the individual drivers.
The Harbeth M40.2 in this room had a fine spatial reproduction, but nothing I've heard in this room or elsewhere portrays space and envelopment like the Graham LS8/1. The Graham also has superior bass definiton, allowing one to more easily follow and hear equal weighting in the notes of bass scales on, for example, plucked acoustic bass jazz solos. The Graham does this without the need for any bass EQ in my room, whereas the Harbeth M40.2 could only do this with electronic bass EQ, and then not to the level of realism the Graham so easily accomplishes without EQ.
The Harbeths will probably play louder without distortion than the Grahams, but this is no longer important to me.
Yes, at the time I had the Harbeth M40.2s in my system a few years back I said I could easily listen happily to them for the rest of my life. Yes, they are that good. The new M40.3s HD, from my AXPONA auditions, may have less need of any bass EQ. They seem less warm in the bass. I have not had the M40.3 in my room, so I really don't know for sure. Still, having heard the Grahams, I would not trade them for the M40.2 or 40.3 for use in my room, given my current listening priorities.
In retrospect, the M40.2s did not yield the level of coherence and speaking with one voice I hear from the Grahams where a single driver is responsible for everything you hear up to the mid-treble, the 3.5 kHz crossover between the bass/midrange driver and the lower tweeter. The Grahams share this coherence with speakers like the Spendor BC-1, Spendor SP1/2, and Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 which use a similar bass driver similarly crossed over. However, the Graham enhances this effect yet more by banishing to a greater extent any micro-resonances in the drivers and also by extending the bass significantly so you don't have to use subwoofers and their crossovers to get a good musical foundation.
While the Harbeths had fine macro and micro dynamic contrasts, I find the Grahams are quite superior at this, at least within their SPL limits, and I really don't approach those SPL limits in my usual listening these days.
Each listener has to weigh their listening priorities. Besides being less visually room dominating than the M40.2s in my small room listened to from about the same distance, sonically, the level of purity of sound, the spatial presentation/envelopment and the dynamic jump the Grahams provide suit my current priorities better. These factors may well be somewhat enhanced by the Graham's ability to achieve a level of tonal balance naturalness which, on most material, does not require electronic equalization to meet my requirements. And if I at some point want the bottom bass, this could be added via subwoofers. But, at this point overall bass quality and quantity seems just fine.
Perhaps obviously, the Harbeth M40.2 or M40.3 are so much larger/bulkier and heavier than the Graham that lugging them in and out of my room and up and down the stairs is a huge chore, not something I want to do again at this point in my life.
I tried adding the Schiit Loki Max equalizer to make egregiously balanced recordings more listenable. But, in the end, even that purest of analog equalizers did more harm than good to my ears in my new system. I value the purity of the sound, the space/envelopment, and the dynamic jump too much to endure the impairment of those factors which the Loki Max introduced, even in its bypass mode. I can certainly understand how other listeners, those who value tonal accuracy uber alles, for example, may make a different judgement.
The big Harbeth's bass was also warmer than that of the Graham. It needed EQ via the DSPeaker X4 digital equalizer I was using at the time to reduce peaks in the midbass. It also benefited from a bit of EQ to reduce the midrange level around 800 - 1000 Hz.
The Harbeth speakers are very coherent for large three-ways. They can be listened to in the near field, as close as 20 inches away if you are careful to listen at the correct height with respect to the tweeter (listen 1 to 2 inches below the tweeter centers) without hearing out the individual drivers.
The Harbeth M40.2 in this room had a fine spatial reproduction, but nothing I've heard in this room or elsewhere portrays space and envelopment like the Graham LS8/1. The Graham also has superior bass definiton, allowing one to more easily follow and hear equal weighting in the notes of bass scales on, for example, plucked acoustic bass jazz solos. The Graham does this without the need for any bass EQ in my room, whereas the Harbeth M40.2 could only do this with electronic bass EQ, and then not to the level of realism the Graham so easily accomplishes without EQ.
The Harbeths will probably play louder without distortion than the Grahams, but this is no longer important to me.
Yes, at the time I had the Harbeth M40.2s in my system a few years back I said I could easily listen happily to them for the rest of my life. Yes, they are that good. The new M40.3s HD, from my AXPONA auditions, may have less need of any bass EQ. They seem less warm in the bass. I have not had the M40.3 in my room, so I really don't know for sure. Still, having heard the Grahams, I would not trade them for the M40.2 or 40.3 for use in my room, given my current listening priorities.
In retrospect, the M40.2s did not yield the level of coherence and speaking with one voice I hear from the Grahams where a single driver is responsible for everything you hear up to the mid-treble, the 3.5 kHz crossover between the bass/midrange driver and the lower tweeter. The Grahams share this coherence with speakers like the Spendor BC-1, Spendor SP1/2, and Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 which use a similar bass driver similarly crossed over. However, the Graham enhances this effect yet more by banishing to a greater extent any micro-resonances in the drivers and also by extending the bass significantly so you don't have to use subwoofers and their crossovers to get a good musical foundation.
While the Harbeths had fine macro and micro dynamic contrasts, I find the Grahams are quite superior at this, at least within their SPL limits, and I really don't approach those SPL limits in my usual listening these days.
Each listener has to weigh their listening priorities. Besides being less visually room dominating than the M40.2s in my small room listened to from about the same distance, sonically, the level of purity of sound, the spatial presentation/envelopment and the dynamic jump the Grahams provide suit my current priorities better. These factors may well be somewhat enhanced by the Graham's ability to achieve a level of tonal balance naturalness which, on most material, does not require electronic equalization to meet my requirements. And if I at some point want the bottom bass, this could be added via subwoofers. But, at this point overall bass quality and quantity seems just fine.
Perhaps obviously, the Harbeth M40.2 or M40.3 are so much larger/bulkier and heavier than the Graham that lugging them in and out of my room and up and down the stairs is a huge chore, not something I want to do again at this point in my life.
I tried adding the Schiit Loki Max equalizer to make egregiously balanced recordings more listenable. But, in the end, even that purest of analog equalizers did more harm than good to my ears in my new system. I value the purity of the sound, the space/envelopment, and the dynamic jump too much to endure the impairment of those factors which the Loki Max introduced, even in its bypass mode. I can certainly understand how other listeners, those who value tonal accuracy uber alles, for example, may make a different judgement.
Last edited:
Even Better Than I First Thought
The Graham Audio LS8/1 speakers in the context of my new streaming-only system have just become even more stunning in their sonic potential.
For at least the second time in my eight-year listening history in my current home, unknown or uncorrected problems with my internet service have over time insidiously and gradually impaired the sound quality I was getting. The prior time I can recall was a few years ago. Once I realized there was a problem due to constant drop outs in my internet service, the problem eventually was fixed with the replacement of my individual service coax line from the pole at the street to my home's internet service entrance. That took months, a lot of experimentation with routers, wires, and connections, much battle with Xfinity service reps, and a lot of false starts before the problem was eventually resolved by a third-level tech climbing the utility pole at the street outside by home to replace my individual service line.
This time, in hindsight there were noticeable sonic issues for a few days before complete service interruptions of a few minutes every hour or less prepared me to once again do battle with Xfinity. Sonically, I had begun to notice varying tonal balance, imaging, and staging from moment to moment, as well as slight popping noises on some program material. On video and computers I noticed slower surfing response, sometimes commands didn't "take" the first time, and some pixelation on HD video. All the while, however, when the service wasn't fully down, it measured fine via Speed Test in terms of speed, latency, and jitter, and Xfinity troubleshooting showed no service interruptions in my area, no packet losses or uncorrected errors, and data delivery to my gateway exceeded my plan guarantee in terms of speed.
This time I got lucky. I was able to fix the issue myself. I reasoned that the parts of my service most likely to fail over time are the outside parts exposed to weather. Those include the service coax wire from the utility pole, the MoCA PoE filter with grounding block junction at the end of that wire, and the wire from that filter which actually goes through the wall of my home. As far as my visual inspection could determine, the two wires looked in good shape. I had an extra MoCA filter with grounding block from the last time I had experimented trying to fix my internet problem, so I swapped out the old one for a new one. That was an easy fix, a replacement of a $6 part, taking only a few minutes and a screwdriver to accomplish.
That did the trick. No more internet service interruptions, at least for the last day. The audio, video, and computer problems I've noticed are gone. The sound of streaming audio from my system seems even more satisfying than it was before. The attributes mentioned in REG's review of the LS8/1s and which I elaborated upon in posts #15 - #19 above are all there to their former degree, and then some. I'm even happier with my new system now.
By the way, I imagine one way such a MoCA PoE filter can get damaged is via lightning-induced surges in the cable line. We have a lot of nearby lightning strikes in my area, especially in summer. Most cable services routinely install these filters at the cable point of entry to protect quality of service from both internal use of pre-existing cable coax (rather than ethernet cables) to carry internet signals and to protect your service quality from your neighbors' potential use of MoCA. See this link for more about MoCA.
You can experiment with eliminating the use of a PoE MoCA filter if you want. However, for safety, you must keep a grounding block at your cable service point of entry. Back-to-back female coax connectors tied to a grounding block is the alternative. This eliminates the MoCA filter. See this link.
Update: The dropouts returned. Xfinity confirmed that my router was intermittently dropping signal. Their technician replaced one length of Blue Jeans RG-6 cable from the wall outlet to the router. The technician claimed that all such pre-made cables are "crap" or at least suspect. He replaced it with a cable made by him on the spot with Xfinity tools and materials. The signal then tested fine to and from the router.
But within ten minutes of his leaving, the internet service dropped out again. I eventually self-diagnosed another problem. Due to a factory reset I had performed on my router in my attempts to stop the service dropouts, for some reason my 2.4 Ghz Wi-Fi band had a different password from the 5 GHz band connection. The Xfinity app said that this is not recommended. Eventually I was able to get all my Wi-Fi connected devices connected via the same password. I also removed the MoCA filter at my service entrance and disabled my router's MoCA service; while neighbors' use of MoCA supposedly might cause problems that way, the speed of my connection improved further.
For the past week my service has been rock solid, compared to dropping out for a few minutes every hour or so. The sound quality remains elevated as described earlier in this post.
Further Update: Observed speed test fluctuations I subsequently observed led me to reinsert the MoCA filter at the service entrance. This has kept the speed test results relatively stable for weeks now and did not affect the excellent sound quality. Apparently, the only real connectivity problems were the different passwords for 2.4 and 5 GHz Wi-Fi bands and the one link of ethernet cable the Xfinity technician replaced.
The Graham Audio LS8/1 speakers in the context of my new streaming-only system have just become even more stunning in their sonic potential.
For at least the second time in my eight-year listening history in my current home, unknown or uncorrected problems with my internet service have over time insidiously and gradually impaired the sound quality I was getting. The prior time I can recall was a few years ago. Once I realized there was a problem due to constant drop outs in my internet service, the problem eventually was fixed with the replacement of my individual service coax line from the pole at the street to my home's internet service entrance. That took months, a lot of experimentation with routers, wires, and connections, much battle with Xfinity service reps, and a lot of false starts before the problem was eventually resolved by a third-level tech climbing the utility pole at the street outside by home to replace my individual service line.
This time, in hindsight there were noticeable sonic issues for a few days before complete service interruptions of a few minutes every hour or less prepared me to once again do battle with Xfinity. Sonically, I had begun to notice varying tonal balance, imaging, and staging from moment to moment, as well as slight popping noises on some program material. On video and computers I noticed slower surfing response, sometimes commands didn't "take" the first time, and some pixelation on HD video. All the while, however, when the service wasn't fully down, it measured fine via Speed Test in terms of speed, latency, and jitter, and Xfinity troubleshooting showed no service interruptions in my area, no packet losses or uncorrected errors, and data delivery to my gateway exceeded my plan guarantee in terms of speed.
This time I got lucky. I was able to fix the issue myself. I reasoned that the parts of my service most likely to fail over time are the outside parts exposed to weather. Those include the service coax wire from the utility pole, the MoCA PoE filter with grounding block junction at the end of that wire, and the wire from that filter which actually goes through the wall of my home. As far as my visual inspection could determine, the two wires looked in good shape. I had an extra MoCA filter with grounding block from the last time I had experimented trying to fix my internet problem, so I swapped out the old one for a new one. That was an easy fix, a replacement of a $6 part, taking only a few minutes and a screwdriver to accomplish.
That did the trick. No more internet service interruptions, at least for the last day. The audio, video, and computer problems I've noticed are gone. The sound of streaming audio from my system seems even more satisfying than it was before. The attributes mentioned in REG's review of the LS8/1s and which I elaborated upon in posts #15 - #19 above are all there to their former degree, and then some. I'm even happier with my new system now.
By the way, I imagine one way such a MoCA PoE filter can get damaged is via lightning-induced surges in the cable line. We have a lot of nearby lightning strikes in my area, especially in summer. Most cable services routinely install these filters at the cable point of entry to protect quality of service from both internal use of pre-existing cable coax (rather than ethernet cables) to carry internet signals and to protect your service quality from your neighbors' potential use of MoCA. See this link for more about MoCA.
You can experiment with eliminating the use of a PoE MoCA filter if you want. However, for safety, you must keep a grounding block at your cable service point of entry. Back-to-back female coax connectors tied to a grounding block is the alternative. This eliminates the MoCA filter. See this link.
Update: The dropouts returned. Xfinity confirmed that my router was intermittently dropping signal. Their technician replaced one length of Blue Jeans RG-6 cable from the wall outlet to the router. The technician claimed that all such pre-made cables are "crap" or at least suspect. He replaced it with a cable made by him on the spot with Xfinity tools and materials. The signal then tested fine to and from the router.
But within ten minutes of his leaving, the internet service dropped out again. I eventually self-diagnosed another problem. Due to a factory reset I had performed on my router in my attempts to stop the service dropouts, for some reason my 2.4 Ghz Wi-Fi band had a different password from the 5 GHz band connection. The Xfinity app said that this is not recommended. Eventually I was able to get all my Wi-Fi connected devices connected via the same password. I also removed the MoCA filter at my service entrance and disabled my router's MoCA service; while neighbors' use of MoCA supposedly might cause problems that way, the speed of my connection improved further.
For the past week my service has been rock solid, compared to dropping out for a few minutes every hour or so. The sound quality remains elevated as described earlier in this post.
Further Update: Observed speed test fluctuations I subsequently observed led me to reinsert the MoCA filter at the service entrance. This has kept the speed test results relatively stable for weeks now and did not affect the excellent sound quality. Apparently, the only real connectivity problems were the different passwords for 2.4 and 5 GHz Wi-Fi bands and the one link of ethernet cable the Xfinity technician replaced.
Last edited:
Why Skylan SKY 4P-20 Stands for the Graham Audio LS 8/1?
As discussed in post #12, I find the Graham-supplied metal stands to be entirely too low for best sound from the Grahams in my set up.Like the stands recommended and provided by Stirling Broadcast for the LS3/6, the appearance of the Graham stands suggests that they are probably sourced from Something Solid. But that leaves the question of why I chose these Skylan SKY 4P-20 stands rather than other choices.
I have successfully used Skylan Stands with prior speakers: home theater Totems, original M40s, and most recently the Dutch & Dutch 8c. Skylan stands seem problem free, do not ring and can be mass loaded if you want (wood pellets recommended for mass loading), the shipping from Canada to the USA is very quick, proprietor Noel Nolan is a pleasure to deal with, and the packing is a work of art. See this information page for details about the Skylan stands.
Some Skylan stands require or work better with mass loading, but Noel does not recommend that with these stands. With the posts of these stands, he somehow has attached something like sorbothane pads to the inside surfaces of each post to damp residual vibration. Metal rods pass through each post and are screwed tightly into metal nuts anchored in the top plate and bottom plate, constantly tensioning the posts against the bottom and top plates, further inhibiting vibration and/or providing a path for vibration from the speakers to go to the bottom plate and then to the floor.
The stands that come with the LS8/1 Signature Edition (they are available separately for the non-signature version at additional cost) are too low (no more than 15.75" with spikes, 15 inches without), are solid metal, and they ring like a bell.
While I have used such stands successfully before (the Stirling LS3/6 I used seven years ago in this same room came with them, too), they really are too low without angling them back and I did not want to do that. I would have to special order a higher pair from England.
I did that once for Something Solid stands for M40.1s and the shipping box was so flimsy and poorly padded that the little carbon tips atop each post broke off. The paint on the posts was also marred and I had to touch that up. Thankfully the carbon tips did not actually fall out of the box although the box was significantly ripped all the way through. I reattached the carbon tips with super glue.
On the Skylan stands I could take off the four little 1/8"-high neoprene dots that aren't at the corners of the speaker/top plate of the stand if I want, but Noel Nolan of Sklyan suggested I try it this way first.
As I'm using the Skylan stands, there are eight dots per stand, four in the corners of the top plate, which are under the speaker corners, and four in a square further inboard.
Noel also suggested trying the QBricks he also sent. I used those with the Dutch & Dutch speakers. They fit into the well atop each of the four rods going through the four posts. I have not tried those with the Grahams. I'm positive that the contact area of the eight neoprene dots is less than the four carbon tips atop the Something Solid stands. These dots are really tiny.
On the other hand, a more open stand like the stock stand may well allow more vibration into the air rather than vibrating the stand. The stock stands have no top plate. But I really like what I'm hearing now, so I'm not anxious to swap stands at this point.
Some believe that using the manufacturer's recommended stand is necessary for best sound from the speaker, at least "best" as determined by the manufacturer. They would say that you should use the Graham's top-plate-less stand since BBC-type speakers just work better with such stands and if you want to change the height of the manufacturer's stand you can do this by adding spacers between the speaker and stand or between the stand and floor.
I don't disagree about being able to increase the height of the manufacturer's chosen stands via various interfaces either between stand and speaker or stand and floor. But, then, by interjecting additional aftermarket interfaces, the stand may well not perform as the manufacturer intended. You may be hearing more of the interface than the stand itself. At least that has been my experience with things hard, soft, and middling interjected. I generally prefer soft interfaces between stand and speaker and stand and floor. I agree with REG who has said that you don't want to induce high frequency vibrations into the speaker cabinet and that is just what hard interfaces tend to do.
I do not like the sonic effect of tilting stands or speakers backwards. Been there, done that. This is not ideal, especially for speakers as spatially capable as the Graham LS8/1. I also believe most users are incapable of mathematically computing the correct angular tilt back, These Graham speakers must be positioned and oriented as precisely as you can manage, as REG's review also mentioned, for maximal spatial resolution. Getting the stands and speakers level is one easy part of doing that, but then your ears have to be on axis with the lower tweeter which will mean a taller stand than comes with the LS8/1 Signature Edition.
I also usually dislike the sound of metal stands. They always seem to brighten the sound at least a bit. The only ones which don't ring much are the Sound Anchors because of the heavy damping inside the metal and they, too, sound awful for other reasons I haven't been able to put my finger on. I owned them for a very short time for use with the original Harbeth M40s and quickly discarded them, open top and all.
Wood, MDF, and the polymer materials Skylan uses work fine. Some of the best sounding stands I've used with a variety of speakers are actually stools made from Asian hard wood and, while sturdy enough to sit on, are not terribly rigid. They are also quite cheap. I used a single layer of terrycloth toweling between the seat of the stool and the speaker and just rested the wooden legs of the stool on the carpet. Such stools are difficult to find in shorter heights than 24 inches, however. They looked something like this stool. I now also do see a 12-inch-high version here.
As discussed in post #12, I find the Graham-supplied metal stands to be entirely too low for best sound from the Grahams in my set up.Like the stands recommended and provided by Stirling Broadcast for the LS3/6, the appearance of the Graham stands suggests that they are probably sourced from Something Solid. But that leaves the question of why I chose these Skylan SKY 4P-20 stands rather than other choices.
I have successfully used Skylan Stands with prior speakers: home theater Totems, original M40s, and most recently the Dutch & Dutch 8c. Skylan stands seem problem free, do not ring and can be mass loaded if you want (wood pellets recommended for mass loading), the shipping from Canada to the USA is very quick, proprietor Noel Nolan is a pleasure to deal with, and the packing is a work of art. See this information page for details about the Skylan stands.
Some Skylan stands require or work better with mass loading, but Noel does not recommend that with these stands. With the posts of these stands, he somehow has attached something like sorbothane pads to the inside surfaces of each post to damp residual vibration. Metal rods pass through each post and are screwed tightly into metal nuts anchored in the top plate and bottom plate, constantly tensioning the posts against the bottom and top plates, further inhibiting vibration and/or providing a path for vibration from the speakers to go to the bottom plate and then to the floor.
The stands that come with the LS8/1 Signature Edition (they are available separately for the non-signature version at additional cost) are too low (no more than 15.75" with spikes, 15 inches without), are solid metal, and they ring like a bell.
While I have used such stands successfully before (the Stirling LS3/6 I used seven years ago in this same room came with them, too), they really are too low without angling them back and I did not want to do that. I would have to special order a higher pair from England.
I did that once for Something Solid stands for M40.1s and the shipping box was so flimsy and poorly padded that the little carbon tips atop each post broke off. The paint on the posts was also marred and I had to touch that up. Thankfully the carbon tips did not actually fall out of the box although the box was significantly ripped all the way through. I reattached the carbon tips with super glue.
On the Skylan stands I could take off the four little 1/8"-high neoprene dots that aren't at the corners of the speaker/top plate of the stand if I want, but Noel Nolan of Sklyan suggested I try it this way first.
As I'm using the Skylan stands, there are eight dots per stand, four in the corners of the top plate, which are under the speaker corners, and four in a square further inboard.
Noel also suggested trying the QBricks he also sent. I used those with the Dutch & Dutch speakers. They fit into the well atop each of the four rods going through the four posts. I have not tried those with the Grahams. I'm positive that the contact area of the eight neoprene dots is less than the four carbon tips atop the Something Solid stands. These dots are really tiny.
On the other hand, a more open stand like the stock stand may well allow more vibration into the air rather than vibrating the stand. The stock stands have no top plate. But I really like what I'm hearing now, so I'm not anxious to swap stands at this point.
Some believe that using the manufacturer's recommended stand is necessary for best sound from the speaker, at least "best" as determined by the manufacturer. They would say that you should use the Graham's top-plate-less stand since BBC-type speakers just work better with such stands and if you want to change the height of the manufacturer's stand you can do this by adding spacers between the speaker and stand or between the stand and floor.
I don't disagree about being able to increase the height of the manufacturer's chosen stands via various interfaces either between stand and speaker or stand and floor. But, then, by interjecting additional aftermarket interfaces, the stand may well not perform as the manufacturer intended. You may be hearing more of the interface than the stand itself. At least that has been my experience with things hard, soft, and middling interjected. I generally prefer soft interfaces between stand and speaker and stand and floor. I agree with REG who has said that you don't want to induce high frequency vibrations into the speaker cabinet and that is just what hard interfaces tend to do.
I do not like the sonic effect of tilting stands or speakers backwards. Been there, done that. This is not ideal, especially for speakers as spatially capable as the Graham LS8/1. I also believe most users are incapable of mathematically computing the correct angular tilt back, These Graham speakers must be positioned and oriented as precisely as you can manage, as REG's review also mentioned, for maximal spatial resolution. Getting the stands and speakers level is one easy part of doing that, but then your ears have to be on axis with the lower tweeter which will mean a taller stand than comes with the LS8/1 Signature Edition.
I also usually dislike the sound of metal stands. They always seem to brighten the sound at least a bit. The only ones which don't ring much are the Sound Anchors because of the heavy damping inside the metal and they, too, sound awful for other reasons I haven't been able to put my finger on. I owned them for a very short time for use with the original Harbeth M40s and quickly discarded them, open top and all.
Wood, MDF, and the polymer materials Skylan uses work fine. Some of the best sounding stands I've used with a variety of speakers are actually stools made from Asian hard wood and, while sturdy enough to sit on, are not terribly rigid. They are also quite cheap. I used a single layer of terrycloth toweling between the seat of the stool and the speaker and just rested the wooden legs of the stool on the carpet. Such stools are difficult to find in shorter heights than 24 inches, however. They looked something like this stool. I now also do see a 12-inch-high version here.
Last edited:
More Notes on Spendor SP1/2 vs. Stirling LS3/6 vs. Graham LS8/1
REG's descriptions of the relative balance of the Spendor, Stirling, and Graham seem right on to me. Remember, he currently owns them all and can compare them all in the same room with the same equipment. He seems to think the balance differences are fairly small--all within reason for music lovers.
While I would say the differences in mids and highs are larger than REG finds them, I agree that the Spendor is the warmest, least bright, most mellow sounding of the three. The Spendor sounds the smoothest, but with that it also sounds a bit more distant.
The Grahams do have more energy around 2 kHz than the Spendor SP1/2. The midrange and highs of the SP1/2 are quite mid-hall-like with good classical recordings. The Grahams are a bit more upfront and present. This, plus the greater bass extension and power handling, enables the Grahams to be more agnostic in terms of portraying all types of music very well and alleviates the need for subwoofing, which surely is much more needed with the Spendors.
The Grahams, like the Stirling, sound like they have more dynamic swing/punch and the Grahams also sound more micro-dynamically nuanced. While the Grahams may have more 2 kHz level, that does not impair their portrayal of soundstage depth in the slightest. The Grahams soundstage is the best I've heard in my room. Closely mike vocals appear well forward of the speaker plane as they should. Well recorded band or orchestral brass--even when the players are playing forte or louder--is way back there. There are no peaks or resonances which cause instruments to jump forward.
But, yes, the bottom line is that the Spendors are beautifully smooth and easy sounding, to a greater degree than the other two. If you have a pair of Spendor SP1/2s mated with subwoofers, don't automatically think that you should "upgrade" to the Stirlings or Grahams. Weigh your priorities. It's up to you.
REG's descriptions of the relative balance of the Spendor, Stirling, and Graham seem right on to me. Remember, he currently owns them all and can compare them all in the same room with the same equipment. He seems to think the balance differences are fairly small--all within reason for music lovers.
While I would say the differences in mids and highs are larger than REG finds them, I agree that the Spendor is the warmest, least bright, most mellow sounding of the three. The Spendor sounds the smoothest, but with that it also sounds a bit more distant.
The Grahams do have more energy around 2 kHz than the Spendor SP1/2. The midrange and highs of the SP1/2 are quite mid-hall-like with good classical recordings. The Grahams are a bit more upfront and present. This, plus the greater bass extension and power handling, enables the Grahams to be more agnostic in terms of portraying all types of music very well and alleviates the need for subwoofing, which surely is much more needed with the Spendors.
The Grahams, like the Stirling, sound like they have more dynamic swing/punch and the Grahams also sound more micro-dynamically nuanced. While the Grahams may have more 2 kHz level, that does not impair their portrayal of soundstage depth in the slightest. The Grahams soundstage is the best I've heard in my room. Closely mike vocals appear well forward of the speaker plane as they should. Well recorded band or orchestral brass--even when the players are playing forte or louder--is way back there. There are no peaks or resonances which cause instruments to jump forward.
But, yes, the bottom line is that the Spendors are beautifully smooth and easy sounding, to a greater degree than the other two. If you have a pair of Spendor SP1/2s mated with subwoofers, don't automatically think that you should "upgrade" to the Stirlings or Grahams. Weigh your priorities. It's up to you.
More on Deciding Not to Use Equalization in My New System
I have edited my discussion of the Loki Max in posts #3 and #4 above to be what I now feel is even more "fair and balanced" than it was originally. See this link. I have also voted with my pocketbook. I sent the Loki Max back to Schiit for a refund earlier this week.. But, as I end up saying about the Loki Max, if you liked the Cello EQ units from 20 years ago, you can certainly like the Loki Max. But for me, I've been spoiled by much better GUIs in more recent equalizers and the primitive user interface of the Loki Max somewhat spoils the pot for me.
I'm surely not anti-electronic equalization for home audio systems in principle. I have used electronic digital or analog EQ much of the time in many system iterations over the years as explained in this thread (add to that list of equalizers I've used the REW software I used with the Dutch & Dutch 8c and the dbx VENU360 which was part and parcel of my prior speakers, the Sanders 10e). Other times I have eschewed electronic EQ at home. Much depends on how obvious the particular speaker's frequency response shortcomings are to me in my listening room after I've physically set everything up to the best of my ability. Granted, my physical set-ups always give great weight to the ability of the system to image and stage well, so often I end up not choosing placements of speakers or listener which provide the smoothest bass response and thus the need for electronic EQ arises.
But with the Graham, the speakers work so well tonally in my set-up with most recordings that I really felt little need for electronic EQ. I tried it anyway since there is always egregiously balanced program material. But personally I found the cure on balance to be worse than the disease. I fully acknowledge that others may differ.
I think the physical bypass testing I used to determine what the Loki Max was adding or subtracting from the unequalized sound is entirely appropriate. Physical bypass testing is the ultimate test of what a unit is doing to your sound, especially where, as in the case of the Loki Max, the unit is easy to physically bypass and does not affect the system volume when its dials are set to flat or electronically bypassed.
Some feel such bypass testing is inappropriate for an equalizer because equalization is ubiquitous, having been used in recording and production of most all recordings. They say that adding one more layer of equalization at home can't possibly hurt. This is especially so, they say, since getting the tonality exactly right is so obviously more important to final sound quality than any minor shortcomings a serious unit like the Loki Max may have in terms of transparency. Such opinions are usually held by those who are very particular indeed about tonal balance, those who need to zero in on the exact tonal quality of favorite instruments, such as the violin.
While I certainly care about natural tonal balance, I'm not quite THAT particular. Without looking, I can't tell one type of violin or who's playing it live, so I don't care about that in home music reproduction. I don't play any musical instruments. I just don't have as exacting standards as some do for tonal reproduction of stringed or other instruments, so this is less important to me than it is some others. I have to get in the ballpark of true violin and vocal sound. I know when a solo violin or massed violins sound too screechy, for example, but I just don't have the expertise to tell a Strad from another type of violin or tell you who is playing that instrument.
In my critique of the Loki Max I did not mean to imply that any electronic EQ devices I've used over the years have seemed perfectly transparent to me. I have always looked for devices that were easy to use and relatively transparent and weighed those factors against the need of a particular system for electronic frequency response manipulation.
In the case of my new Graham LS8/1-based system, the need for adjusting the frequency response seems quite low, while I don't judge the Loki Max easy to use and it proved not as transparent as I'd hoped for such a supposedly purist all-analog (no A/D or D/A) device. Thus, I decided against using it.
I have edited my discussion of the Loki Max in posts #3 and #4 above to be what I now feel is even more "fair and balanced" than it was originally. See this link. I have also voted with my pocketbook. I sent the Loki Max back to Schiit for a refund earlier this week.. But, as I end up saying about the Loki Max, if you liked the Cello EQ units from 20 years ago, you can certainly like the Loki Max. But for me, I've been spoiled by much better GUIs in more recent equalizers and the primitive user interface of the Loki Max somewhat spoils the pot for me.
I'm surely not anti-electronic equalization for home audio systems in principle. I have used electronic digital or analog EQ much of the time in many system iterations over the years as explained in this thread (add to that list of equalizers I've used the REW software I used with the Dutch & Dutch 8c and the dbx VENU360 which was part and parcel of my prior speakers, the Sanders 10e). Other times I have eschewed electronic EQ at home. Much depends on how obvious the particular speaker's frequency response shortcomings are to me in my listening room after I've physically set everything up to the best of my ability. Granted, my physical set-ups always give great weight to the ability of the system to image and stage well, so often I end up not choosing placements of speakers or listener which provide the smoothest bass response and thus the need for electronic EQ arises.
But with the Graham, the speakers work so well tonally in my set-up with most recordings that I really felt little need for electronic EQ. I tried it anyway since there is always egregiously balanced program material. But personally I found the cure on balance to be worse than the disease. I fully acknowledge that others may differ.
I think the physical bypass testing I used to determine what the Loki Max was adding or subtracting from the unequalized sound is entirely appropriate. Physical bypass testing is the ultimate test of what a unit is doing to your sound, especially where, as in the case of the Loki Max, the unit is easy to physically bypass and does not affect the system volume when its dials are set to flat or electronically bypassed.
Some feel such bypass testing is inappropriate for an equalizer because equalization is ubiquitous, having been used in recording and production of most all recordings. They say that adding one more layer of equalization at home can't possibly hurt. This is especially so, they say, since getting the tonality exactly right is so obviously more important to final sound quality than any minor shortcomings a serious unit like the Loki Max may have in terms of transparency. Such opinions are usually held by those who are very particular indeed about tonal balance, those who need to zero in on the exact tonal quality of favorite instruments, such as the violin.
While I certainly care about natural tonal balance, I'm not quite THAT particular. Without looking, I can't tell one type of violin or who's playing it live, so I don't care about that in home music reproduction. I don't play any musical instruments. I just don't have as exacting standards as some do for tonal reproduction of stringed or other instruments, so this is less important to me than it is some others. I have to get in the ballpark of true violin and vocal sound. I know when a solo violin or massed violins sound too screechy, for example, but I just don't have the expertise to tell a Strad from another type of violin or tell you who is playing that instrument.
In my critique of the Loki Max I did not mean to imply that any electronic EQ devices I've used over the years have seemed perfectly transparent to me. I have always looked for devices that were easy to use and relatively transparent and weighed those factors against the need of a particular system for electronic frequency response manipulation.
In the case of my new Graham LS8/1-based system, the need for adjusting the frequency response seems quite low, while I don't judge the Loki Max easy to use and it proved not as transparent as I'd hoped for such a supposedly purist all-analog (no A/D or D/A) device. Thus, I decided against using it.
Effect of Large Red LEDs
I tried a Tice Clock back in the day, prior to 1994., while my first wife and I were still living in a condo. I certainly heard a difference, but, to me, at that time in that system, I classified that difference as not better, but a bit worse, adding a bit of hiss as well as some high frequency emphasis. For Stereophile's multi-reviewer discussion of this device, see this link.
The reason I bring this up is that for at least the last two decades I have used a Sony clock radio in my bedroom with similar large (two-inch high) red LEDs for the numbers. Given our retirement lifestyle (actually since I've worked from home since the pandemic hit in early 2020) my second wife and I haven't used the alarm feature, much less the radio. The radio has been tuned to the bottom of the AM band, the volume was turned all the way down, and the radio was turned off. Also, the brightness of the LED clock was turned down all the way, maximally dim. There is no way to turn the display completely off without unplugging the clock.
In just the last few days I've been experimenting with the clock radio plugged into the wall outlet and not plugged in.
Despite the electrical filtration provided by my PI Audio UberBusses, and the fact that this clock radio is plugged in in another room on a different electrical circuit, the difference in sound is unmistakable with it plugged in vs. not plugged in.
All my audio judgments for the past 20+ years have been formed with this thing plugged in. The difference seems greater than the old Tice Clock. Still, at first the difference was not clearly better or worse. I would analogize the effect of the Sony plugged in as turning up the sharpness control on a video display. At first it was not really clear whether the sharpness was turned up too high with the Sony plugged in, or whether the sharpness was too low with it unplugged.
After listening with the clock radio unplugged for a few days, things settled down/in and perhaps those "things" included my perceptions. Now I'm convinced that the sound is yet better with this Sony clock radio unplugged. The lower ranges are warmer yet equally defined, the images are more naturally focused, the soundstage is yet larger and more enveloping. Closely miked centered vocals are still projected forward, but with a bit less etch of the centered image, which seems more natural to me. The sound is yet more relaxed and free from high-frequency edge and grit. Backgrounds are blacker. The overall level of the high frequencies seems a bit lower, although I'm sure measurements would not show this.
In any event, if you, too, have any items with a large red LED display, you may want to experiment. I notice some plug-in red LED digital clocks with numerals as large as three inches are currently for offer on Amazon.
I tried a Tice Clock back in the day, prior to 1994., while my first wife and I were still living in a condo. I certainly heard a difference, but, to me, at that time in that system, I classified that difference as not better, but a bit worse, adding a bit of hiss as well as some high frequency emphasis. For Stereophile's multi-reviewer discussion of this device, see this link.
The reason I bring this up is that for at least the last two decades I have used a Sony clock radio in my bedroom with similar large (two-inch high) red LEDs for the numbers. Given our retirement lifestyle (actually since I've worked from home since the pandemic hit in early 2020) my second wife and I haven't used the alarm feature, much less the radio. The radio has been tuned to the bottom of the AM band, the volume was turned all the way down, and the radio was turned off. Also, the brightness of the LED clock was turned down all the way, maximally dim. There is no way to turn the display completely off without unplugging the clock.
In just the last few days I've been experimenting with the clock radio plugged into the wall outlet and not plugged in.
Despite the electrical filtration provided by my PI Audio UberBusses, and the fact that this clock radio is plugged in in another room on a different electrical circuit, the difference in sound is unmistakable with it plugged in vs. not plugged in.
All my audio judgments for the past 20+ years have been formed with this thing plugged in. The difference seems greater than the old Tice Clock. Still, at first the difference was not clearly better or worse. I would analogize the effect of the Sony plugged in as turning up the sharpness control on a video display. At first it was not really clear whether the sharpness was turned up too high with the Sony plugged in, or whether the sharpness was too low with it unplugged.
After listening with the clock radio unplugged for a few days, things settled down/in and perhaps those "things" included my perceptions. Now I'm convinced that the sound is yet better with this Sony clock radio unplugged. The lower ranges are warmer yet equally defined, the images are more naturally focused, the soundstage is yet larger and more enveloping. Closely miked centered vocals are still projected forward, but with a bit less etch of the centered image, which seems more natural to me. The sound is yet more relaxed and free from high-frequency edge and grit. Backgrounds are blacker. The overall level of the high frequencies seems a bit lower, although I'm sure measurements would not show this.
In any event, if you, too, have any items with a large red LED display, you may want to experiment. I notice some plug-in red LED digital clocks with numerals as large as three inches are currently for offer on Amazon.
Last edited:
Very interesting discussion. The Graham 8/1 Signatures impressed me mightily at last year’s CAF. To my ears the room they were in had the best sound of the whole show. If I am ever tempted to replace my open baffle/horns setup, the 8/1 will be on my audition list for sure.
Have you tried the Grahams with tube power amps?
Have you tried the Grahams with tube power amps?
I have not used a tube power amp since my very first component stereo purchased around 1966. It was a Dynaco SCA-35 integrated tube amp.
Tube amps when combined with speakers are unpredictable tone controls with the high output impedance of the tube output combining with the varying-by-frequency input impedance characteristics of a particular speaker to produce quite-audible changes in response. See Stereophile's graphed simulated speaker test load response for every amp they've tested in the past couple of decades or more. Each amp has a unique response into the test load, tube amps generally producing far greater response variations due to their generally much higher output impedances.
Real speakers will produce varying frequency response characteristics from any given tube amp. Thus, a tube amp has no specific frequency response, only the response into a particular speaker.
The much lower output impedance of most solid state amps keep such variations in frequency response to a much lower amount as shown in Stereophile's test reports on solid-state amps. Thus my strong preference for solid state amps.
Tube amps when combined with speakers are unpredictable tone controls with the high output impedance of the tube output combining with the varying-by-frequency input impedance characteristics of a particular speaker to produce quite-audible changes in response. See Stereophile's graphed simulated speaker test load response for every amp they've tested in the past couple of decades or more. Each amp has a unique response into the test load, tube amps generally producing far greater response variations due to their generally much higher output impedances.
Real speakers will produce varying frequency response characteristics from any given tube amp. Thus, a tube amp has no specific frequency response, only the response into a particular speaker.
The much lower output impedance of most solid state amps keep such variations in frequency response to a much lower amount as shown in Stereophile's test reports on solid-state amps. Thus my strong preference for solid state amps.
Plug In by Unplugging
Now that I've had more time to appreciate the effects of unplugging my old Sony clock radio which I wrote about in post #27, I wanted to re-express and elaborate on my reactions to those effects.
It's about the sound of the music. Even when it's about the music, for me it's always been about the sound of that music. I want the sound of the music to touch me intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. Getting tonal balance more correct via electronic equalization has never done this for me. While I intellectually appreciate such an improvement, it does not grab me or capture my imagination. It does not transport me.
For me it's about focus and envelopment. It's about removing electronic artifacts and breaking down barriers between me and the art so that the sound of the music can take me wherever I want to go.
My current Graham LS8/1 system is the best I've had at this. Yet as I recently discovered, there are simple tweaks which for no obvious reason can take the sound of the music through this system to new levels.
Given the nature of this tweak, I strongly suspect that it involves reducing low-level electrical effects. In this case I'd hazard a guess that it involves reducing RFI and/or EMI.
Back in my former house, which was custom built, I had 400-amp electrical service. One 200-amp panel powered only the outlets in my stereo room into which I plugged my audio equipment. The other 200-amp panel powered everything else in the house. Occasionally, just to get a baseline on my system's sonic potential for reproducing the sound of the music, I would open the breaker on the 200-amp service powering the rest of the house. It was amazing how much better this "flip of a switch" made the audio system sound. This was my standard for comparing the performance of all the power regeneration and power filtration devices I tried. Nothing ever came close, with many actually making the sound of the music worse.
These days I have two dedicated circuits for my audio gear and run the power from those circuits through PI Audio UberBusses, one for each line, with the addition of a PI Audio Buss Depot filtering the power phase not used by the audio equipment. The line noise on my audio outlets measures zero with a meter meant to measure such things, while considerable noise is measured on other outlets in the house. These PI Audio devices do no harm that I can hear and seem to "clean up" the sound considerably.
It was thus quite surprising when I recently discovered that unplugging one device from a wall outlet in another room and powered by another circuit made a profound improvement in the sound of the music from my audio system.
That device is an old Sony clock radio which has large, two-inch-tall numerals, made from segmented red LEDs. This effect may be totally unique to my home and audio system. But I figured I would alert others to it in case your system sound might also benefit. If you have such a device in your home, I suggest comparing the sound with that clock or clock radio plugged in versus unplugged. At my house, the effect is immediately audible and is unmistakable.
I've struggled to come up with a description of the effect of unplugging this clock radio. It comes down to allowing me to plug in to the sound of the music to a degree not possible before. I relax into the sound of the music. The music comes into every part of my being so much easier and I respond to it in ways I didn't before.
Analytically, all sorts of electronic artifacts and small distortions unnoticed before are swept away. All the spatial focus and envelopment aspects are improved, as are subtle and not-so-subtle dynamic contrasts. The pace, rhythm, and timing of the music seem to make more musical sense and certainly to have more emotional appeal. Low-level detail is improved, even though the overall tonal balance seems a bit warmer and a bit treble reduced. The background between and behind the notes is blacker, even though hall and electronic ambiance effects are more clearly reproduced. A video analogy of many of these effects which comes to mind is that it's like the sharpness control was turned up too high before and now it's just right.
Anyway, if you have such a device in your home, try unplugging it. It's a free experiment in terms of cost and the only effort if you don't hear a difference or don't like the difference is to reset the time and any lost alarm or radio station presets.
If you decide to abandon your old clock or clock radio, just use your smartphone or a tablet instead to duplicate the functionality of the clock or clock radio. Sure, operating those devices wirelessly or plugged in might subtly affect your system's audio quality as well, but my experiments with such devices suggests that their audible effect is either nonexistent or miniscule by comparison to such a clock radio.
Now that I've had more time to appreciate the effects of unplugging my old Sony clock radio which I wrote about in post #27, I wanted to re-express and elaborate on my reactions to those effects.
It's about the sound of the music. Even when it's about the music, for me it's always been about the sound of that music. I want the sound of the music to touch me intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. Getting tonal balance more correct via electronic equalization has never done this for me. While I intellectually appreciate such an improvement, it does not grab me or capture my imagination. It does not transport me.
For me it's about focus and envelopment. It's about removing electronic artifacts and breaking down barriers between me and the art so that the sound of the music can take me wherever I want to go.
My current Graham LS8/1 system is the best I've had at this. Yet as I recently discovered, there are simple tweaks which for no obvious reason can take the sound of the music through this system to new levels.
Given the nature of this tweak, I strongly suspect that it involves reducing low-level electrical effects. In this case I'd hazard a guess that it involves reducing RFI and/or EMI.
Back in my former house, which was custom built, I had 400-amp electrical service. One 200-amp panel powered only the outlets in my stereo room into which I plugged my audio equipment. The other 200-amp panel powered everything else in the house. Occasionally, just to get a baseline on my system's sonic potential for reproducing the sound of the music, I would open the breaker on the 200-amp service powering the rest of the house. It was amazing how much better this "flip of a switch" made the audio system sound. This was my standard for comparing the performance of all the power regeneration and power filtration devices I tried. Nothing ever came close, with many actually making the sound of the music worse.
These days I have two dedicated circuits for my audio gear and run the power from those circuits through PI Audio UberBusses, one for each line, with the addition of a PI Audio Buss Depot filtering the power phase not used by the audio equipment. The line noise on my audio outlets measures zero with a meter meant to measure such things, while considerable noise is measured on other outlets in the house. These PI Audio devices do no harm that I can hear and seem to "clean up" the sound considerably.
It was thus quite surprising when I recently discovered that unplugging one device from a wall outlet in another room and powered by another circuit made a profound improvement in the sound of the music from my audio system.
That device is an old Sony clock radio which has large, two-inch-tall numerals, made from segmented red LEDs. This effect may be totally unique to my home and audio system. But I figured I would alert others to it in case your system sound might also benefit. If you have such a device in your home, I suggest comparing the sound with that clock or clock radio plugged in versus unplugged. At my house, the effect is immediately audible and is unmistakable.
I've struggled to come up with a description of the effect of unplugging this clock radio. It comes down to allowing me to plug in to the sound of the music to a degree not possible before. I relax into the sound of the music. The music comes into every part of my being so much easier and I respond to it in ways I didn't before.
Analytically, all sorts of electronic artifacts and small distortions unnoticed before are swept away. All the spatial focus and envelopment aspects are improved, as are subtle and not-so-subtle dynamic contrasts. The pace, rhythm, and timing of the music seem to make more musical sense and certainly to have more emotional appeal. Low-level detail is improved, even though the overall tonal balance seems a bit warmer and a bit treble reduced. The background between and behind the notes is blacker, even though hall and electronic ambiance effects are more clearly reproduced. A video analogy of many of these effects which comes to mind is that it's like the sharpness control was turned up too high before and now it's just right.
Anyway, if you have such a device in your home, try unplugging it. It's a free experiment in terms of cost and the only effort if you don't hear a difference or don't like the difference is to reset the time and any lost alarm or radio station presets.
If you decide to abandon your old clock or clock radio, just use your smartphone or a tablet instead to duplicate the functionality of the clock or clock radio. Sure, operating those devices wirelessly or plugged in might subtly affect your system's audio quality as well, but my experiments with such devices suggests that their audible effect is either nonexistent or miniscule by comparison to such a clock radio.
Roon With My New System
Even though I sold my Roon Nucleus Plus and the Keces P8 LPS to power it, I can still run Roon on my system. I have a Lifetime Roon License. And before I purchased the Nucleus Plus, I used my general purpose Mac computer as the Roon Core.
I can still do that. These days my Mac is much more capable than my Mac was before as well as being much more capable than the Intel i7 chip around which the Roon Nucleus is based. My Apple Mac Studio computer has the Apple M1 Ultra chipset with 20-core CPU, 64-core GPU, 32-core Neural Engine, 128GB unified memory, and 4TB of SSD storage. Thus, although it's a general purpose computer not optimized for music streaming or playback, it has plenty of "horsepower."
Also, due to the changes in my streaming configuration, the signal passes via Wi-Fi from the Mac Studio to my router, then through an ethernet connection through my GigaFOILv4-Inline Ethernet Filter and then through a mere 1.5 foot length of Blue Jeans Cat 6 cable to my Lumin X1. There is no additional ethernet switch in the signal path.
And since all my music files are stored in the Mac Studio's 4TB of SSD storage, I also have access through Roon to my owned music files which I ripped to WAV files from my 1200+ CDs.
To use Roon, my Mac Studio computer must be turned on with the Roon App running on it. I control the audio system via the Roon App running on my iPad Pro, the same iPad I use to control streaming via the Lumin App running on my Lumin X1 streaming DAC. Generally, I turn the Mac Studio computer off for "serious listening" via the Lumin App. To use Roon through the Lumin X1, I turn on the Roon Ready option in the Lumin Options list. This still uses the Lumin's Leedh-processed volume control, rather than Roon's own volume control. But the Lumin App does not have to be open to play music via Roon once the Roon Ready option is turned on. To listen to music through Roon I only need to have the Roon App playing on my desktop computer and the Roon App open on my iPad Pro system controller.
How does Roon sound now in this configuration? Well, remember that it's now impossible to directly compare how Roon sounded before via the Nucleus Plus with what I'm hearing now.
But to the extent that memory serves, Roon sounds more pleasing now than it ever did before. It sounds fuller and warmer in the lower regions, smoother in the highs, and with zero edginess or brittleness. Imaging and staging are very fine and the backgrounds are black. No, it does not sound quite as open, detailed, or high-frequency extended as programs do through the Lumin App, but it has a very "relaxed" sound with much less digital artifacts than I've heard from Roon before.
Not bad, not bad at all. Very listenable, like a comfortable old shoe, something I never would have said about Roon before. The Roon sound quality is probably about subjectively equal overall to the best sound I previously heard from Roon in my system. That was when my Dutch & Dutch 8c speakers were operating as the Roon Endpoints with the Nucleus Plus as the Roon Core, bypassing my Lumin X1 entirely. That set up was a bit digitally edgy by comparison (I needed to use the Uptone Audio EtherRegen ethernet switch in that system), but was more seemingly transparent and open sounding up top.
Even though I sold my Roon Nucleus Plus and the Keces P8 LPS to power it, I can still run Roon on my system. I have a Lifetime Roon License. And before I purchased the Nucleus Plus, I used my general purpose Mac computer as the Roon Core.
I can still do that. These days my Mac is much more capable than my Mac was before as well as being much more capable than the Intel i7 chip around which the Roon Nucleus is based. My Apple Mac Studio computer has the Apple M1 Ultra chipset with 20-core CPU, 64-core GPU, 32-core Neural Engine, 128GB unified memory, and 4TB of SSD storage. Thus, although it's a general purpose computer not optimized for music streaming or playback, it has plenty of "horsepower."
Also, due to the changes in my streaming configuration, the signal passes via Wi-Fi from the Mac Studio to my router, then through an ethernet connection through my GigaFOILv4-Inline Ethernet Filter and then through a mere 1.5 foot length of Blue Jeans Cat 6 cable to my Lumin X1. There is no additional ethernet switch in the signal path.
And since all my music files are stored in the Mac Studio's 4TB of SSD storage, I also have access through Roon to my owned music files which I ripped to WAV files from my 1200+ CDs.
To use Roon, my Mac Studio computer must be turned on with the Roon App running on it. I control the audio system via the Roon App running on my iPad Pro, the same iPad I use to control streaming via the Lumin App running on my Lumin X1 streaming DAC. Generally, I turn the Mac Studio computer off for "serious listening" via the Lumin App. To use Roon through the Lumin X1, I turn on the Roon Ready option in the Lumin Options list. This still uses the Lumin's Leedh-processed volume control, rather than Roon's own volume control. But the Lumin App does not have to be open to play music via Roon once the Roon Ready option is turned on. To listen to music through Roon I only need to have the Roon App playing on my desktop computer and the Roon App open on my iPad Pro system controller.
How does Roon sound now in this configuration? Well, remember that it's now impossible to directly compare how Roon sounded before via the Nucleus Plus with what I'm hearing now.
But to the extent that memory serves, Roon sounds more pleasing now than it ever did before. It sounds fuller and warmer in the lower regions, smoother in the highs, and with zero edginess or brittleness. Imaging and staging are very fine and the backgrounds are black. No, it does not sound quite as open, detailed, or high-frequency extended as programs do through the Lumin App, but it has a very "relaxed" sound with much less digital artifacts than I've heard from Roon before.
Not bad, not bad at all. Very listenable, like a comfortable old shoe, something I never would have said about Roon before. The Roon sound quality is probably about subjectively equal overall to the best sound I previously heard from Roon in my system. That was when my Dutch & Dutch 8c speakers were operating as the Roon Endpoints with the Nucleus Plus as the Roon Core, bypassing my Lumin X1 entirely. That set up was a bit digitally edgy by comparison (I needed to use the Uptone Audio EtherRegen ethernet switch in that system), but was more seemingly transparent and open sounding up top.
Last edited:
Very fine speaker, I also own a pair of the (not so) limited edition signature version.
I previously had Stenheim Alumine bookshelves...if you think the realism of the Grahams is something else, you should hear the Stenheims. The Grahams have less outright realism and imaging and layering prowess, but they are just so pleasant to listen to -- for me, they're like a comfortable old pair of jeans, easy to slip into, nothing razzle dazzle about them. Sure, I still have that bespoke suit if the occasion calls for it, but day in day out, this is what I use.
I previously had Stenheim Alumine bookshelves...if you think the realism of the Grahams is something else, you should hear the Stenheims. The Grahams have less outright realism and imaging and layering prowess, but they are just so pleasant to listen to -- for me, they're like a comfortable old pair of jeans, easy to slip into, nothing razzle dazzle about them. Sure, I still have that bespoke suit if the occasion calls for it, but day in day out, this is what I use.
System Cost, Real & Theoretical:
My Actual System
I was curious to see how much it would cost to replicate my current internet-streaming-only audio system with new identical equipment and services, so I did some current price research and calculations. See the system description at post #10 above. This assumes you already have a house and a suitable audio room, of course.
Internet service: $122 a month for 1 Gig service. ($50/month will get you at least 20 meg service, probably more. While I have the 1 Gig service, I don't need that to stream 24/192 Hi-Res audio and 4K video simultaneously. 50 or 100 meg service would do nicely. The maximum data download for 24/192 files I've seen is less than 10 meg per second.)
Qobuz: $130 per year.
Roon: $830 for lifetime service
Blue Jeans ethernet cable: $100
Blue Jeans Speaker cables: $150
Benchmark interconnects: $100
Lumin X1 streamer/DAC: $14,000
Amps: AVA DVA M225: $3,400 a pair
Speakers: Graham Audio LS8/1 Signature Edition: $10,000/pair
GigaFOILv4 + Keces P3 LPS: $1,200
Skylan Speaker Stands: $650
Salamander Archetype 20-inch equipment stand with extra shelf: $600
A/V Room Service EVPs (20) for mechanical isolation: $2,000
Alphasorb 4-inch-thick acoustical foam, 128 square feet: $2,500
iPad system controller: $500
Caig Deoxit Gold: $50
Electrical: installation of 2 dedicated 20-amp circuits, 2 P.I. Audio UberBusses, 1 P.I. Audio Buss Depot, P.I. Audio modified electrical outlets, custom 100-foot run of ethernet cable: $6,000. (The P.I. Audio equipment is no longer available new.)
Bright Star Audio isolation bases: $500 if they were available new. The company no longer produces these items.
This totals to about $42,500 for purchases. That's about what I paid for my last new car purchased in 2020, a top-of-the-line Mazda CX-5.
To that, add the yearly Qobuz service ($130) and monthly internet ISP service ($50 to $122 a month).
You can save almost $10,000 off this total by substituting the Lumin U2 Mini + Benchmark DAC3B from the recommendations below for my Lumn X1.
If you have an existing iPad, or even an iPhone, you can save the $500 specified for the iPad controller.
If you already have adequate internet service for serving up high-res audio, you don't need to spend anything additional on that.
The $830 for a Roon lifetime service contract is optional. I rarely use Roon (sonically, the Lumin App is better, I think), but since I bought it, I still have it and it's easily available with my Apple Studio desktop computer acting as the Roon Core.
If you are already subscribing to Qobuz streaming, you don't need to add any extra cost for that service.
The electrical tweaks were unusually expensive for my old house due to its plaster wall construction and fire-stop horizontal stud lumber within the walls. My two dedicated outlets cost $2,000 to install and the ethernet run was another $1,000. P.I. Audio is out of business due to the owner's hand arthritis preventing any further custom electrical assembly work. I don't have a recommendation for substitute electrical power cleaning/filtering.
*************************
Theoretical $20k+ System
My actual system is quite pricey, even for most audiophiles. But note that this price included everything needed, including room treatment, vibration isolation, and electrical power filtration--all the accessories I currently find helpful to sonic quality, in other words.
There are of course examples of absurd price-no- object pricing in audio, as in autos, watches, cigars, boats, and most every other hobby you can think of. But if you are not bitten with the upgrade bug and are content with what you have, you can just ignore items aimed at those with more money than sense.
On the other hand, one fun and perhaps useful exercise is to every once in a while come up with hypothetical audio systems which meet various budget points while maximizing your personal view of best sound.
I think that many here would agree that a good audio system is as important to you as a good car. If you are willing to pay $20,000 for a car, you might thus be willing to pay at least that amount for a home audio system.
These days, you can start fresh with an internet-streaming-only system. That is really the high-value modern way to great sound, together with allowing access to more program material than you could ever hope to buy. If you simply must have access to personal music files not available from Qobuz, just add some sort of server, which can be "free" as part of your music files accessible through your Roon Core or otherwise as inexpensive as a USB-attached solid-state drive for $200 or less. Forget analog and forget digital discs and their players.
Yes there is a yearly expense for Qobuz, but you probably have decent internet service already and you certainly don't need internet speeds in excess of 100 meg/second to stream 4K video and or any audio stream out there, simultaneously. Thus all you need extra is the annual cost of a Qobuz subscription, about $130 a year, about the same as buying one CD a month, while Qobuz gives access to millions of albums.
For amplification, even my latest choice of a pair of AVA DVA M225 Class A/AB monoblock amps with 225 watts each is only $3,400 a pair. But I'll leave it up to you to choose whatever Class D amp built around the latest darling module you think is powerful enough. I'm sure you can do much better, pricewise, with something like that.
For your streaming source, for a bargain, I'd suggest the Blue Sound Node ($600). For more money but close to the best sound, I'd suggest the Lumin U2 Mini streamer ($2,400) into a Benchmark DAC3 B DAC ($1,900). No preamp necessary with either choice.
For speakers, consider the Wharfedale Linton, for under $2,000 a pair, a bargain, I think. For more money, your choice of offerings from Graham, Stirling, or Harbeth. Don't forget to audition the Wharfedale Dovedale if you can in the $7,500/pair range.
Add a pair of speaker stands from Skylan and you won't be sorry. Equipment stand from Salamander Archetype. Wires from Blue Jeans Cable or Benchmark Media.
I currently think that much of the stereo coherence and overall goodness I hear from my Graham LS8/1 speakers comes from having most of the sound come from a single bass/mid driver with the crossover up around 3.5 kHz. The larger models of Spendor/Harbeth/Graham don't do that. Those larger models have crossovers in the 400 Hz to 1.8 kHz range.
What you might want to look for, in other words, are models in the Spendor BC-1 "lineage," such as the Spendor SP1/2, Stirling LS3/6, Graham LS8/1, or Harbeth SLH5plus HD.
I don't think my Graham LS8/1 speakers need subwoofing in my small room. But if you want to add subwoofers to fill out the bottom octave with any of these speakers, I'd suggest at least trying running any of these full range and just supplementing the bottom end. I'd also suggest using a quartet of subs to maximally smooth out the bass end via subwoofer room placement without the need for adding complex electronic equalization. The Stirling LS3/6 + AudioKinesis Swarm worked very well like that in my small room. Another subwoofer possibility is ordinary powered subwoofers. A friend I trust says his pair of Spendor SP1/2s (which he purchased recently in excellent condition for just $900 for the pair) mated with a quartet of powered SVS 3000 Micro subs arranged per the suggested Swarm placement works very well indeed in his room.
My Actual System
I was curious to see how much it would cost to replicate my current internet-streaming-only audio system with new identical equipment and services, so I did some current price research and calculations. See the system description at post #10 above. This assumes you already have a house and a suitable audio room, of course.
Internet service: $122 a month for 1 Gig service. ($50/month will get you at least 20 meg service, probably more. While I have the 1 Gig service, I don't need that to stream 24/192 Hi-Res audio and 4K video simultaneously. 50 or 100 meg service would do nicely. The maximum data download for 24/192 files I've seen is less than 10 meg per second.)
Qobuz: $130 per year.
Roon: $830 for lifetime service
Blue Jeans ethernet cable: $100
Blue Jeans Speaker cables: $150
Benchmark interconnects: $100
Lumin X1 streamer/DAC: $14,000
Amps: AVA DVA M225: $3,400 a pair
Speakers: Graham Audio LS8/1 Signature Edition: $10,000/pair
GigaFOILv4 + Keces P3 LPS: $1,200
Skylan Speaker Stands: $650
Salamander Archetype 20-inch equipment stand with extra shelf: $600
A/V Room Service EVPs (20) for mechanical isolation: $2,000
Alphasorb 4-inch-thick acoustical foam, 128 square feet: $2,500
iPad system controller: $500
Caig Deoxit Gold: $50
Electrical: installation of 2 dedicated 20-amp circuits, 2 P.I. Audio UberBusses, 1 P.I. Audio Buss Depot, P.I. Audio modified electrical outlets, custom 100-foot run of ethernet cable: $6,000. (The P.I. Audio equipment is no longer available new.)
Bright Star Audio isolation bases: $500 if they were available new. The company no longer produces these items.
This totals to about $42,500 for purchases. That's about what I paid for my last new car purchased in 2020, a top-of-the-line Mazda CX-5.
To that, add the yearly Qobuz service ($130) and monthly internet ISP service ($50 to $122 a month).
You can save almost $10,000 off this total by substituting the Lumin U2 Mini + Benchmark DAC3B from the recommendations below for my Lumn X1.
If you have an existing iPad, or even an iPhone, you can save the $500 specified for the iPad controller.
If you already have adequate internet service for serving up high-res audio, you don't need to spend anything additional on that.
The $830 for a Roon lifetime service contract is optional. I rarely use Roon (sonically, the Lumin App is better, I think), but since I bought it, I still have it and it's easily available with my Apple Studio desktop computer acting as the Roon Core.
If you are already subscribing to Qobuz streaming, you don't need to add any extra cost for that service.
The electrical tweaks were unusually expensive for my old house due to its plaster wall construction and fire-stop horizontal stud lumber within the walls. My two dedicated outlets cost $2,000 to install and the ethernet run was another $1,000. P.I. Audio is out of business due to the owner's hand arthritis preventing any further custom electrical assembly work. I don't have a recommendation for substitute electrical power cleaning/filtering.
*************************
Theoretical $20k+ System
My actual system is quite pricey, even for most audiophiles. But note that this price included everything needed, including room treatment, vibration isolation, and electrical power filtration--all the accessories I currently find helpful to sonic quality, in other words.
There are of course examples of absurd price-no- object pricing in audio, as in autos, watches, cigars, boats, and most every other hobby you can think of. But if you are not bitten with the upgrade bug and are content with what you have, you can just ignore items aimed at those with more money than sense.
On the other hand, one fun and perhaps useful exercise is to every once in a while come up with hypothetical audio systems which meet various budget points while maximizing your personal view of best sound.
I think that many here would agree that a good audio system is as important to you as a good car. If you are willing to pay $20,000 for a car, you might thus be willing to pay at least that amount for a home audio system.
These days, you can start fresh with an internet-streaming-only system. That is really the high-value modern way to great sound, together with allowing access to more program material than you could ever hope to buy. If you simply must have access to personal music files not available from Qobuz, just add some sort of server, which can be "free" as part of your music files accessible through your Roon Core or otherwise as inexpensive as a USB-attached solid-state drive for $200 or less. Forget analog and forget digital discs and their players.
Yes there is a yearly expense for Qobuz, but you probably have decent internet service already and you certainly don't need internet speeds in excess of 100 meg/second to stream 4K video and or any audio stream out there, simultaneously. Thus all you need extra is the annual cost of a Qobuz subscription, about $130 a year, about the same as buying one CD a month, while Qobuz gives access to millions of albums.
For amplification, even my latest choice of a pair of AVA DVA M225 Class A/AB monoblock amps with 225 watts each is only $3,400 a pair. But I'll leave it up to you to choose whatever Class D amp built around the latest darling module you think is powerful enough. I'm sure you can do much better, pricewise, with something like that.
For your streaming source, for a bargain, I'd suggest the Blue Sound Node ($600). For more money but close to the best sound, I'd suggest the Lumin U2 Mini streamer ($2,400) into a Benchmark DAC3 B DAC ($1,900). No preamp necessary with either choice.
For speakers, consider the Wharfedale Linton, for under $2,000 a pair, a bargain, I think. For more money, your choice of offerings from Graham, Stirling, or Harbeth. Don't forget to audition the Wharfedale Dovedale if you can in the $7,500/pair range.
Add a pair of speaker stands from Skylan and you won't be sorry. Equipment stand from Salamander Archetype. Wires from Blue Jeans Cable or Benchmark Media.
I currently think that much of the stereo coherence and overall goodness I hear from my Graham LS8/1 speakers comes from having most of the sound come from a single bass/mid driver with the crossover up around 3.5 kHz. The larger models of Spendor/Harbeth/Graham don't do that. Those larger models have crossovers in the 400 Hz to 1.8 kHz range.
What you might want to look for, in other words, are models in the Spendor BC-1 "lineage," such as the Spendor SP1/2, Stirling LS3/6, Graham LS8/1, or Harbeth SLH5plus HD.
I don't think my Graham LS8/1 speakers need subwoofing in my small room. But if you want to add subwoofers to fill out the bottom octave with any of these speakers, I'd suggest at least trying running any of these full range and just supplementing the bottom end. I'd also suggest using a quartet of subs to maximally smooth out the bass end via subwoofer room placement without the need for adding complex electronic equalization. The Stirling LS3/6 + AudioKinesis Swarm worked very well like that in my small room. Another subwoofer possibility is ordinary powered subwoofers. A friend I trust says his pair of Spendor SP1/2s (which he purchased recently in excellent condition for just $900 for the pair) mated with a quartet of powered SVS 3000 Micro subs arranged per the suggested Swarm placement works very well indeed in his room.
Last edited:
Should There Be Only One Ethernet Connection?
Back in post #6 of this thread I talked about how the sound of my new simplified system improved since I was able to remove the ethernet switch which I have previously been using downstream of my GigaFOILv4-Inline Ethernet Filter. Note that there usually will be at least one ethernet switch--the one built into your router--upstream of your streaming DAC. My router is the Comcast/Xfinity Advanced Gateway supplying 1 GHz bandwidth to my system.
I think such a switch will be present in most internet routers, whether provided by your ISP like my Xfinity Advanced Gateway or one which you buy on your own to "upgrade" your router from what is supplied by your ISP. In fact, most aftermarket routers you can buy, rather than renting the one provided by your ISP, provide more ethernet jacks than the one provided by your ISP.
How do you think any of these modems are able to provide more than one ethernet jack? Why, simply by incorporating an ethernet switch which allows any number of the provided ethernet jacks to operate simultaneously. The routers with more ethernet jacks just have more complicated ethernet switching than others.
Now, I'm not suggesting that you tinker with your router to modify it so as to bypass the internal ethernet switch.
But I am suggesting that you experiment with the sonic effect of driving only the streaming DAC in your reference audio system via ethernet. Leave all the other ethernet jacks of the router open. Run all the other internet-connected equipment in your house via Wi-Fi. See what you think.
In my house, with my Comcast/Xfinity Advanced Gateway router, besides my Lumin X1 streamer DAC, the only other item running via ethernet was my Sony XR 65A95K TV which is only about a ten foot air path from the router. I disconnected the ethernet cable feeding that TV at both the router and TV ends and connected it to the internet by Wi-Fi instead. It turned out that this produces what the Sony TV's settings call "Excellent" Wi-Fi signal strength, which I would expect, given the short distance involved and rather open floor plan of the space where this router and TV are located. What I didn't expect was that the responsiveness of the TV to all commands was "snappier" this way with the video and audio quality being at least as good as before. This may have to do with the fact that this Sony TV, as reviewers have noted, has an ethernet jack limited to 100 Meg; it's not a gigabit connection. Thus, it's not able to accept the full bandwidth available from my service. As reviews of the TV have also noted, there is thus an advantage to connecting this particular TV to internet via Wi-Fi since the set can take full advantage of higher bandwidth connections via Wi-Fi. Via Wi-Fi the SpeedTest app on my iPhone usually logs speeds in excess of 700 Meg from the location of the TV.
So, now that my Lumin X1 streaming DAC is the only component being fed internet signal via ethernet from my Xfinity Advanced Gateway router, do I hear a difference in sound quality? Yes, I do! The sound has a bit more more depth of field, envelopment, projection of closely miked sources forward of the speaker plane, and image specificity. The sound field is yet a bit more detached from the speaker positions, in other words. I also hear a bit cleaner overall presentation and a bit more resolution of fine detail, without subjectively shifting the frequency balance toward the high frequencies.
These sonic changes are nothing dramatic or night-and-day. We are talking somewhat subtle changes, just a bit of improvement. But I believe these improvements are real. The sonic changes from removing the Uptone Audio EtherREGEN ethernet switch I talked about in post #6 were more significant. The sonic effect of inserting the properly power-supplied and positioned GigaFOILv4-Inline Ethernet Filter I discussed in post #5 is MUCH more significant.
I have not seen this discussed elsewhere. And, for all I know, this improvement could be limited to my particular installation. Still, this bit of improvement is worth having, I think, if you can reasonably arrange things to drive only your streaming DAC via ethernet from your router. Thus I think it is worth experimenting to see if your system might also benefit from this rearrangement of internet connections.
Back in post #6 of this thread I talked about how the sound of my new simplified system improved since I was able to remove the ethernet switch which I have previously been using downstream of my GigaFOILv4-Inline Ethernet Filter. Note that there usually will be at least one ethernet switch--the one built into your router--upstream of your streaming DAC. My router is the Comcast/Xfinity Advanced Gateway supplying 1 GHz bandwidth to my system.
I think such a switch will be present in most internet routers, whether provided by your ISP like my Xfinity Advanced Gateway or one which you buy on your own to "upgrade" your router from what is supplied by your ISP. In fact, most aftermarket routers you can buy, rather than renting the one provided by your ISP, provide more ethernet jacks than the one provided by your ISP.
How do you think any of these modems are able to provide more than one ethernet jack? Why, simply by incorporating an ethernet switch which allows any number of the provided ethernet jacks to operate simultaneously. The routers with more ethernet jacks just have more complicated ethernet switching than others.
Now, I'm not suggesting that you tinker with your router to modify it so as to bypass the internal ethernet switch.
But I am suggesting that you experiment with the sonic effect of driving only the streaming DAC in your reference audio system via ethernet. Leave all the other ethernet jacks of the router open. Run all the other internet-connected equipment in your house via Wi-Fi. See what you think.
In my house, with my Comcast/Xfinity Advanced Gateway router, besides my Lumin X1 streamer DAC, the only other item running via ethernet was my Sony XR 65A95K TV which is only about a ten foot air path from the router. I disconnected the ethernet cable feeding that TV at both the router and TV ends and connected it to the internet by Wi-Fi instead. It turned out that this produces what the Sony TV's settings call "Excellent" Wi-Fi signal strength, which I would expect, given the short distance involved and rather open floor plan of the space where this router and TV are located. What I didn't expect was that the responsiveness of the TV to all commands was "snappier" this way with the video and audio quality being at least as good as before. This may have to do with the fact that this Sony TV, as reviewers have noted, has an ethernet jack limited to 100 Meg; it's not a gigabit connection. Thus, it's not able to accept the full bandwidth available from my service. As reviews of the TV have also noted, there is thus an advantage to connecting this particular TV to internet via Wi-Fi since the set can take full advantage of higher bandwidth connections via Wi-Fi. Via Wi-Fi the SpeedTest app on my iPhone usually logs speeds in excess of 700 Meg from the location of the TV.
So, now that my Lumin X1 streaming DAC is the only component being fed internet signal via ethernet from my Xfinity Advanced Gateway router, do I hear a difference in sound quality? Yes, I do! The sound has a bit more more depth of field, envelopment, projection of closely miked sources forward of the speaker plane, and image specificity. The sound field is yet a bit more detached from the speaker positions, in other words. I also hear a bit cleaner overall presentation and a bit more resolution of fine detail, without subjectively shifting the frequency balance toward the high frequencies.
These sonic changes are nothing dramatic or night-and-day. We are talking somewhat subtle changes, just a bit of improvement. But I believe these improvements are real. The sonic changes from removing the Uptone Audio EtherREGEN ethernet switch I talked about in post #6 were more significant. The sonic effect of inserting the properly power-supplied and positioned GigaFOILv4-Inline Ethernet Filter I discussed in post #5 is MUCH more significant.
I have not seen this discussed elsewhere. And, for all I know, this improvement could be limited to my particular installation. Still, this bit of improvement is worth having, I think, if you can reasonably arrange things to drive only your streaming DAC via ethernet from your router. Thus I think it is worth experimenting to see if your system might also benefit from this rearrangement of internet connections.
Analog vs. Digital Equalizers
For approximate by-ear adjustment, "eyeballing" the sliders of a 1/3-octave graphic EQ box may be good enough. However, most 1/3-octave graphic analog equalizers require the user to adjust two sets of sliders, one for the right channel and one for the left. Given the short physical throw of most such sliders (40 to 60 mm from max to min), lack of click stops, and large range of adjustment within this short throw (usually plus or minus 6 to 12 dB), it is more difficult than you might think to equally adjust the right and left channels just by looking at their relative positions. And this assumes that the corresponding left and right sliders are actually making an identical electronic correction when they are visibly adjusted alike. If the channels are not equally electronically adjusted, this tends to throw off stereo balance, imaging, and staging.
This potential for unequal left/right adjustment if used casually is one reason why analog equalizers often cause unsatisfactory subjective results even though they can, if used carefully with the results measured carefully, indeed correct frequency response problems. Thus, such units are not recommended for casual correction from recording to recording. They should only be used for "foundation" EQ, to get the system to meet your desired target curve with a known flat frequency response source. Something like the Loki Max with summed left/right controls, only six controls, and click stops is much better suited to adjusting system frequency response from one recording to another.
And digital equalizers, while they often sum the left and right controls and thus inherently adjust each channel by the same amount for any given setting, usually interject A/D and D/A conversions into the signal path. This conversion may not be subjectively transparent, maybe not even as subjectively transparent as analog graphic equalizer adjustments.
Back in the heyday of analog equalizers some pro-audio folks ran a shoot-out among a dozen or more analog 1/3-octave graphic equalizer boxes using a panel of pro-audio listeners to determine rankings. There were apparently rather noticeable subjective differences, especially as to transparency and lack of added noise. It was as a result of that shoot-out that I once owned the Audient ASP231, the clear winner of the shoot out. It's now long out of production, but used units still command asking prices of over $500 even when not in the best physical shape; it was $1,400 when last offered new.
Yes, that Audient unit seemed quite transparent, but it, like most other Proportional Q equalizers, was a pain to adjust, even once, due to a lot of interband overlap. Any given band was significantly affected by the setting of at least the next two bands up and down from that band. You really needed to measure carefully as you went along to set the EQ for the desired results. The position of the sliders was meaningless in terms of the resulting frequency response. And you had to do this tedious adjustment separately for left and right channels and then check that the left and right channel responses closely matched wideband and in terms of overall average SPL. Definitely not the kind of device you want to use to adjust individual recordings. I'd actually recommend screwing a clear plastic guard over the front panel controls to avoid accidentally bumping them out of fine tuning once you have them ideally set to provide foundation EQ for your system.
For approximate by-ear adjustment, "eyeballing" the sliders of a 1/3-octave graphic EQ box may be good enough. However, most 1/3-octave graphic analog equalizers require the user to adjust two sets of sliders, one for the right channel and one for the left. Given the short physical throw of most such sliders (40 to 60 mm from max to min), lack of click stops, and large range of adjustment within this short throw (usually plus or minus 6 to 12 dB), it is more difficult than you might think to equally adjust the right and left channels just by looking at their relative positions. And this assumes that the corresponding left and right sliders are actually making an identical electronic correction when they are visibly adjusted alike. If the channels are not equally electronically adjusted, this tends to throw off stereo balance, imaging, and staging.
This potential for unequal left/right adjustment if used casually is one reason why analog equalizers often cause unsatisfactory subjective results even though they can, if used carefully with the results measured carefully, indeed correct frequency response problems. Thus, such units are not recommended for casual correction from recording to recording. They should only be used for "foundation" EQ, to get the system to meet your desired target curve with a known flat frequency response source. Something like the Loki Max with summed left/right controls, only six controls, and click stops is much better suited to adjusting system frequency response from one recording to another.
And digital equalizers, while they often sum the left and right controls and thus inherently adjust each channel by the same amount for any given setting, usually interject A/D and D/A conversions into the signal path. This conversion may not be subjectively transparent, maybe not even as subjectively transparent as analog graphic equalizer adjustments.
Back in the heyday of analog equalizers some pro-audio folks ran a shoot-out among a dozen or more analog 1/3-octave graphic equalizer boxes using a panel of pro-audio listeners to determine rankings. There were apparently rather noticeable subjective differences, especially as to transparency and lack of added noise. It was as a result of that shoot-out that I once owned the Audient ASP231, the clear winner of the shoot out. It's now long out of production, but used units still command asking prices of over $500 even when not in the best physical shape; it was $1,400 when last offered new.
Yes, that Audient unit seemed quite transparent, but it, like most other Proportional Q equalizers, was a pain to adjust, even once, due to a lot of interband overlap. Any given band was significantly affected by the setting of at least the next two bands up and down from that band. You really needed to measure carefully as you went along to set the EQ for the desired results. The position of the sliders was meaningless in terms of the resulting frequency response. And you had to do this tedious adjustment separately for left and right channels and then check that the left and right channel responses closely matched wideband and in terms of overall average SPL. Definitely not the kind of device you want to use to adjust individual recordings. I'd actually recommend screwing a clear plastic guard over the front panel controls to avoid accidentally bumping them out of fine tuning once you have them ideally set to provide foundation EQ for your system.
Streamer vs. Computer Sound Quality
I was asked if I have any comments about the sound quality if using a PC or Mac type set-up in comparison with my dedicated Lumin X1 streaming/DAC set-up.
I'd say you just have to experiment. I've used both general purpose computers and specialized streaming devices with excellent sounding results. How much of what I've found I prefer is generalizable to other situations, I don't know. That's the short answer.
I've always used a general purpose desktop computer to stream movies and music at my work desk. I currently use an Apple Mac Studio computer to stream music and video soundtracks to the speakers in the Mac Studio display and to my various headphones I have at this work desk. I have Apple AirPods Max which work with a BlueTooth connection to the computer, and NAD Viso HP-50 headphones are powered from the Mac's external headphone jack. For my Stax electrostatic headphones I use a USB connection between the Mac and my Benchmark DAC3B, which then feeds balanced analog audio to a Mjolnir Audio Carbon electrostatic headphone amp which drives the Stax headphones. All of these work well sonically, I feel. Picture and full description of that desktop system is here.
In my audio room, I've used my desktop computer as a streamer when using Roon or streaming music files I ripped from CDs. In my early streaming days before I acquired my Roon license, I used an Apple Airport Express, an iPhone, or an iPad as streamers in my audio room. Later I used various dedicated audio streamer boxes to stream music in that room through speakers. For years I also had a dedicated Roon Nucleus Plus in the audio room to use as my Roon Core. I had first located the Nucleus Plus in another room near my router, but found it sounded better sited in my audio room. That Nucleus Plus was a specialized computer serving as my Roon Core device. Now I'm back to using the desktop computer in my work area as my Roon Core. The equipment I currently use in my audio room is specified and pictured here.
I currently avoid all USB connections in my audio room in favor of ethernet connections. In this room I've found that ethernet sounds smoother in the highs and lower in distortion than USB connections. Ethernet also sounds better than Wi-Fi even though I have to run 90+ feet of ethernet from my router to the audio room, versus an 8-foot Wi-Fi signal path from router to my audio room.
What I have found surprisingly beneficial to ethernet streaming sound is to add an optical break in the ethernet line just before my Lumin X1 streamer. The device I use to accomplish this, a GigaFOILv4 Inline Ethernet filter, is discussed here. It could be that this device would not be so beneficial in a situation not requiring a long ethernet run, but I don't know. I just know I would not want to be without the GigaFOIL device in my current audio room set-up.
I was asked if I have any comments about the sound quality if using a PC or Mac type set-up in comparison with my dedicated Lumin X1 streaming/DAC set-up.
I'd say you just have to experiment. I've used both general purpose computers and specialized streaming devices with excellent sounding results. How much of what I've found I prefer is generalizable to other situations, I don't know. That's the short answer.
I've always used a general purpose desktop computer to stream movies and music at my work desk. I currently use an Apple Mac Studio computer to stream music and video soundtracks to the speakers in the Mac Studio display and to my various headphones I have at this work desk. I have Apple AirPods Max which work with a BlueTooth connection to the computer, and NAD Viso HP-50 headphones are powered from the Mac's external headphone jack. For my Stax electrostatic headphones I use a USB connection between the Mac and my Benchmark DAC3B, which then feeds balanced analog audio to a Mjolnir Audio Carbon electrostatic headphone amp which drives the Stax headphones. All of these work well sonically, I feel. Picture and full description of that desktop system is here.
In my audio room, I've used my desktop computer as a streamer when using Roon or streaming music files I ripped from CDs. In my early streaming days before I acquired my Roon license, I used an Apple Airport Express, an iPhone, or an iPad as streamers in my audio room. Later I used various dedicated audio streamer boxes to stream music in that room through speakers. For years I also had a dedicated Roon Nucleus Plus in the audio room to use as my Roon Core. I had first located the Nucleus Plus in another room near my router, but found it sounded better sited in my audio room. That Nucleus Plus was a specialized computer serving as my Roon Core device. Now I'm back to using the desktop computer in my work area as my Roon Core. The equipment I currently use in my audio room is specified and pictured here.
I currently avoid all USB connections in my audio room in favor of ethernet connections. In this room I've found that ethernet sounds smoother in the highs and lower in distortion than USB connections. Ethernet also sounds better than Wi-Fi even though I have to run 90+ feet of ethernet from my router to the audio room, versus an 8-foot Wi-Fi signal path from router to my audio room.
What I have found surprisingly beneficial to ethernet streaming sound is to add an optical break in the ethernet line just before my Lumin X1 streamer. The device I use to accomplish this, a GigaFOILv4 Inline Ethernet filter, is discussed here. It could be that this device would not be so beneficial in a situation not requiring a long ethernet run, but I don't know. I just know I would not want to be without the GigaFOIL device in my current audio room set-up.
USB vs. Ethernet Connections for Streaming
Yes, I've had good sonic results with both ethernet and USB connections to DACs. I use USB with my computer desk system and ethernet in my audio room. These choices are driven by the particular equipment involved.
My internet router, like most, has two types of outputs, Wi-Fi and ethernet. Most DACs don't accept audio streaming via ethernet, but my Lumin X1 streamer/DAC does. Unlike many streamers, my Lumin X1 streamer has no built-in Wi-Fi antenna reception. Thus ethernet is the only way to get internet input from my router into my Lumin X1.
For the first few years in this house, I had no ethernet run between my router and my audio room. To get around this problem once I started using Lumin streamers, I used a TP Link Wi-Fi extender in Client Mode to grab the Wi-Fi signal from the router about 8 feet directly below my audio room and convert it to an ethernet output to the Lumin. I later had a technician install an ethernet run from my router to the audio room via a very circuitous path since my old house did not allow fishing the ethernet wire directly from the router up 8 feet to the audio room. This direct ethernet connection did sound better feeding the Lumin than the Wi-Fi converted to ethernet.
Now that I have an ethernet run directly from my router to my audio room, using ethernet to connect the Lumin X1 directly to my router is the most logical method.
Before I had the Lumin X1 I used Benchmark DACs. Benchmark DACs take USB, but not ethernet inputs. Results were fine, but even the Benchmark DACs are sensitive to the USB cable connecting them to the source. If you believe otherwise, you just haven't tried swapping out USB cables. Every USB cable sounded different. I tried many and eventually found one which was more to my liking. But of course you really can't tell which USB cable sounds best, only which produces the closest match to other available digital connections like coax digital, Toslink, and AES/EBU and the sound of those cables vary also, even with Benchmark DACs. But USB cables vary more in sound than any other digital link. Many or most sound more "open" than other types of digital links, but also seem bass light, tonally brighter, and somewhat hashy to varying degrees. My preferred USB link sounds fuller, much less hashy, and more like the other types of digital link. Different ethernet cables into the Lumin X1 vary just a bit in sonics. Thus I've used ethernet connections in my audio room most of the time since I got the Lumin X1.
There is also the fact that neither the Lumin streamers nor the Auralic streamer I used before that take kindly to USB-connected equipment--not just sources like a CD transport, but also devices such as thumb drives or larger USB solid state drives plugged into the streamer. The sound of internet streamed music is degraded at least a bit or more when any USB physical connection is made to the Lumin. I solve that by using only ethernet-connected storage, such as the Lumin L1 or music files stored on my Apple Mac Studio computer which is on the network but connected to the network by Wi-Fi. Perhaps this problem with USB-connected equipment to streamers is more common than most people realize and may be why many people find their locally stored files to sound better than files streamed from the internet.
USB cables are the only easy option for connecting a general purpose computer to most DACs. I use my "best" USB cable, the one which sounded the most pleasing to me with Benchmark DACs in my audio room, to connect my Apple Mac Studio computer to my Benchmark DAC3B in my computer desktop system. See this cable. The Benchmark feeds my Mjolnir electrostatic headphone amp which drives my Stax headphones. Again, the type of USB link used in this connection affects the sound quality I hear from my Stax headphones. This particular USB cable sounds so good to me in this application that I have not been motivated to try bypassing the Benchmark by driving the Mjolnir amp directly from the analog headphone output of the Apple computer. Adaptors would be needed to convert the stereo mini-plug analog output of the computer to feed the balanced analog inputs of the Mjolnir headphone amp. I also figure that the Benchmark is probably a better sounding DAC than whatever the Apple Mac is using internally to convert digital audio data to an analog output via its headphone jack.
Yes, I've had good sonic results with both ethernet and USB connections to DACs. I use USB with my computer desk system and ethernet in my audio room. These choices are driven by the particular equipment involved.
My internet router, like most, has two types of outputs, Wi-Fi and ethernet. Most DACs don't accept audio streaming via ethernet, but my Lumin X1 streamer/DAC does. Unlike many streamers, my Lumin X1 streamer has no built-in Wi-Fi antenna reception. Thus ethernet is the only way to get internet input from my router into my Lumin X1.
For the first few years in this house, I had no ethernet run between my router and my audio room. To get around this problem once I started using Lumin streamers, I used a TP Link Wi-Fi extender in Client Mode to grab the Wi-Fi signal from the router about 8 feet directly below my audio room and convert it to an ethernet output to the Lumin. I later had a technician install an ethernet run from my router to the audio room via a very circuitous path since my old house did not allow fishing the ethernet wire directly from the router up 8 feet to the audio room. This direct ethernet connection did sound better feeding the Lumin than the Wi-Fi converted to ethernet.
Now that I have an ethernet run directly from my router to my audio room, using ethernet to connect the Lumin X1 directly to my router is the most logical method.
Before I had the Lumin X1 I used Benchmark DACs. Benchmark DACs take USB, but not ethernet inputs. Results were fine, but even the Benchmark DACs are sensitive to the USB cable connecting them to the source. If you believe otherwise, you just haven't tried swapping out USB cables. Every USB cable sounded different. I tried many and eventually found one which was more to my liking. But of course you really can't tell which USB cable sounds best, only which produces the closest match to other available digital connections like coax digital, Toslink, and AES/EBU and the sound of those cables vary also, even with Benchmark DACs. But USB cables vary more in sound than any other digital link. Many or most sound more "open" than other types of digital links, but also seem bass light, tonally brighter, and somewhat hashy to varying degrees. My preferred USB link sounds fuller, much less hashy, and more like the other types of digital link. Different ethernet cables into the Lumin X1 vary just a bit in sonics. Thus I've used ethernet connections in my audio room most of the time since I got the Lumin X1.
There is also the fact that neither the Lumin streamers nor the Auralic streamer I used before that take kindly to USB-connected equipment--not just sources like a CD transport, but also devices such as thumb drives or larger USB solid state drives plugged into the streamer. The sound of internet streamed music is degraded at least a bit or more when any USB physical connection is made to the Lumin. I solve that by using only ethernet-connected storage, such as the Lumin L1 or music files stored on my Apple Mac Studio computer which is on the network but connected to the network by Wi-Fi. Perhaps this problem with USB-connected equipment to streamers is more common than most people realize and may be why many people find their locally stored files to sound better than files streamed from the internet.
USB cables are the only easy option for connecting a general purpose computer to most DACs. I use my "best" USB cable, the one which sounded the most pleasing to me with Benchmark DACs in my audio room, to connect my Apple Mac Studio computer to my Benchmark DAC3B in my computer desktop system. See this cable. The Benchmark feeds my Mjolnir electrostatic headphone amp which drives my Stax headphones. Again, the type of USB link used in this connection affects the sound quality I hear from my Stax headphones. This particular USB cable sounds so good to me in this application that I have not been motivated to try bypassing the Benchmark by driving the Mjolnir amp directly from the analog headphone output of the Apple computer. Adaptors would be needed to convert the stereo mini-plug analog output of the computer to feed the balanced analog inputs of the Mjolnir headphone amp. I also figure that the Benchmark is probably a better sounding DAC than whatever the Apple Mac is using internally to convert digital audio data to an analog output via its headphone jack.
The Downside of Remote Controlled Streaming
I fully admit that my musical attention span for home listening ain't what it used to be. I think remote controlled TV, remote controlled music listening, smartphone ownership since 20ll, a fixation on sound quality rather than musical art and a willingness to experiment a lot to "fix" real or imagined sonic problems, a recent work history of primarily managerial internet communications composed of reading, responding, and initiating hundreds of electronic conversations on various topics each day have all combined to do this. I have drunk the Kool Aid, probably more than most people my age (almost 71).
If your primary musical listening diet is currently longer classical works listened to straight through, you don't need a remote controlled system and you may not want one. You want to get up every 20 minutes at least to move around a bit. Once "audio channel surfing" is easily available, you may find the temptation too great to resist.
Such "audio channel surfing" behavior may be viewed as devaluing to musical art and the artists involved. And you may find music appreciation becoming a less valuable part of your life. If you don't want this to happen, the safest path is to resist internet use as much as practical in all aspects of your life.
Oddly, my musical attention span for live music has not been as much affected. I have no trouble listening to full length live concerts without squirming and I really enjoy them. Perhaps it's the audio-visual aspects of live music.
I also have no trouble watching entire movies at a single session, either at home or at a movie theater. I frequently binge watch multi-season commercial-free TV series; I can do that for several hours straight by just pausing the program occasionally to get up for restroom breaks, household tasks, fill up my water bottle, get a snack, etc.
So, what I'm saying is that if you want to maintain your current level of music appreciation so that you can continue to listen to longer classical works straight through, but still want to stream music from the internet, a streaming system without easy remote control is the safest path.
I fully admit that my musical attention span for home listening ain't what it used to be. I think remote controlled TV, remote controlled music listening, smartphone ownership since 20ll, a fixation on sound quality rather than musical art and a willingness to experiment a lot to "fix" real or imagined sonic problems, a recent work history of primarily managerial internet communications composed of reading, responding, and initiating hundreds of electronic conversations on various topics each day have all combined to do this. I have drunk the Kool Aid, probably more than most people my age (almost 71).
If your primary musical listening diet is currently longer classical works listened to straight through, you don't need a remote controlled system and you may not want one. You want to get up every 20 minutes at least to move around a bit. Once "audio channel surfing" is easily available, you may find the temptation too great to resist.
Such "audio channel surfing" behavior may be viewed as devaluing to musical art and the artists involved. And you may find music appreciation becoming a less valuable part of your life. If you don't want this to happen, the safest path is to resist internet use as much as practical in all aspects of your life.
Oddly, my musical attention span for live music has not been as much affected. I have no trouble listening to full length live concerts without squirming and I really enjoy them. Perhaps it's the audio-visual aspects of live music.
I also have no trouble watching entire movies at a single session, either at home or at a movie theater. I frequently binge watch multi-season commercial-free TV series; I can do that for several hours straight by just pausing the program occasionally to get up for restroom breaks, household tasks, fill up my water bottle, get a snack, etc.
So, what I'm saying is that if you want to maintain your current level of music appreciation so that you can continue to listen to longer classical works straight through, but still want to stream music from the internet, a streaming system without easy remote control is the safest path.
Similar threads
