Same here, ended up with M3i. Early 90's, that was a long time ago! I don't have mine anymore, too much to move around. They were power hogs too, seemed to work best with the largest amp you could put on them.
My monitor/subwoofer system
- Thread starter Al M.
- Start date
Same here, ended up with M3i. Early 90's, that was a long time ago! I don't have mine anymore, too much to move around. They were power hogs too, seemed to work best with the largest amp you could put on them.
Hello Tang,
That is an interesting question. Now with Al's suggestion that I comment, I will try to answer it.
I sold my Mini IIs over two years ago so my aural memory may be a bit vague. Al and I have discussed for years the effect of subwoofers with mini monitors. We have different opinions on the subject. I attempted two times to integrate subs in my system with the Mini IIs and was not successful. I owned two JL Audio F110 subs and later tried a REL sub on Al's raised sub platform. Perhaps the problem was my room, or there was simply an incompatibility issue with the integration attempts. I always heard trade offs. Coherence was a problem, and the subs seemed to detract from the clarity of the Mini IIs. One does not read many instances of the Mini II being used successfully with subs. In fact I asked Alon Wolf about getting a pair of Magico Subs for my Mini IIs, and he suggested getting a bigger speaker like my Q3 and selling the MIni II. The gap between the midrange and sub is just too great, IMO, and that of Magico.
Al seems to like a slightly richer sound with a fuller lower midrange/upper bass than I do. I prefer overall clarity and coherence and am willing to sacrifice the lower registers somewhat. I've never really heard a mini/sub system where I don't hear the subs. In some sense, this describes the differences between the sounds of our two systems, both then with the Mini II, and now with the Q3. We have slightly different preferences, even though as one audio buddy mentioned to me the other day, we both use the BSO as one of our references. We may hear the same system or live performance, while sitting right next to each other, and yet we hear or focus on different things, and prefer different things.
My memory tells me that the Mini II is more extended than Al's mini speakers, both his first pair , and then his two Ref 3A models. I was very satisfied without subs for the music I listened to at the time. With the Q3s, I now listen more to larger scale classical that the Mini IIs could not portray as well. I also used to ask Al to turn off his subs at times when listening to his system because I liked the purity of that sound more when listening to smaller scale music like string quartets. I no longer do that because his system sounds different and much better now with the new gear and zero toe-in, but I suspect he also found my requests a bit tiresome.
Another factor is that Al openly discusses his preference for being able to adjust the bass output level for various recordings. He enjoys this adjustability to suit his listening pleasure while I prefer to hear the recording as is.
So, Al and I have some differences regarding our opinions about subs with mini monitors. My experience is quite limited. I think Al has more knowledge and experience combining the two. In fact, we first met when I contacted him after reading about his system being mini-monitor based,as was mine. I reached out to him and we discovered that we live just 15 minutes from each other. The rest is history, as they say.
Having written that, here is how I would describe my memory of my system with the Mini II versus his current system with mini-monitor plus two subs: I preferred my old system with Mini IIs to Al's old system, especially when he had only one REL sub with his old gear. My system was more resolving with fewer compromises. However, it was not as extended, it had a smaller sound, and the stage was not nearly as deep, but for the music I listened to, it sounded very convincing and right to me. It did have lots of dynamics and was incredibly coherent and resolving. Al's system was not as smooth sounding and suffered from some high frequencies sharpness or brightness which may have been caused by his digital or his older speakers. I don't really know.
We have both moved on from those older systems. I have fuller range Q3s now and can play and enjoy large scale jazz and classical. My system is now much more capable. His new speakers are also much better than what he had and they are now better integrated with his two new JL Audio subwoofers. His digital is much better sorted out, and his electronics are very good. I thoroughly enjoy both systems now, and I think he does as well, though I suspect we each prefer our own system over our good friend's.
The two systems do sound different and they reflect their owner's current tastes and preferences. They do sound similar in many respects, but I would say the tonal balance is what differs most. Al was over the other night listening to my system and he preferred my MSL Sig Gold/SME V-12 combination while I preferred my new vdh Master Sig/3012R combination. I would describe the primary difference as one of tonal balance where the MSL/V-12 is slightly fuller, richer sounding in the lower midrange to upper bass. It is a more ripe sound, which is what I hear in Al's system. I find the vdh/3012R to be more timbrally accurate, more dynamic, and slightly cleaner sounding, though I also very much like the other combination for what it offers, which is why I so enjoy going to visit Al and hearing his system.
I enjoyed my time with the Mini II (boy, that channels MikeL's language) and I learned a lot from those speakers. They were excellent, and I think a classic design. They were also beautiful to look at and extremely well made. Al's Ref 3 and JL subs are now really singing, but I now don't really know whether I would prefer them to my Mini II. Overall, the systems I think sounded pretty similar, but Al's can now portray large scale music better than my Mini II based system could. A direct comparison between the two speaker combinations in the same system would be fascinating in the hands of a set up expert. I am not sure I could fully optimize either speaker to hear them at their best. Jim Smith did take my Mini II very far and given its limitations in extension and number of drivers, it sounded excellent on all music except larger scale classical, jazz and heavy rock. Al's system now sounds excellent and convincing on those genres, though perhaps the tonal balance is slightly different, and it is not as pure in the Mini II's sweet spot, but that is based on a rapidly failing memory.
I hope that answers your interesting question.
Many thanks, Peter, for your detailed impressions. While we naturally disagree on some things, I don't think this can be resolved in yet another discussion where other participants or readers have not heard the two systems.
Obviously we keep having different opinions about sub integration. While I do think that in the past there was a more noticeable gap in my system between subs and main speakers which manifested itself in the mid-bass region, I also think it has evened out dramatically. While bass in my system is not perfect (I have not heard any system where it is), in my very personal opinion it now offers in general some of the cleanest and most even bass that I have heard. At the same time it naturally does show shortcomings on some recordings compared to other systems, which in turn seem to have bass problems of their own.
There will of course always be differences in opinion about what the total bass output on a recording should be, but the bass output also factually changes from recording to recording, regardless of the listener's preferences. I value indeed the flexibility to efficiently adjust for overly ripe or overly lean bass, but lately have found that I tend to adjust much less than I did in the past. There are many listening sessions where I do not adjust the bass at all, but keep it at a standard setting, as was also the case when you came over on Sunday.
If any WBF member is in the Boston area or comes to visit there, they are welcome to listen and form their own opinion.
I was also quite successful integrating a sub with my Ref3a Master Control MMCs. I was unsuccessful integrating the same sub with my Odeon horns. The bass loading of the speakers was quite different and probably has a big effect on if it was right or not.
Were the subs you tried sealed or vented box designs? Were the Mini IIs vented or sealed? I have found that if the sub and speakers have disparate loading then it is more difficult to integrate the two.Hello Tang,
That is an interesting question. Now with Al's suggestion that I comment, I will try to answer it.
I sold my Mini IIs over two years ago so my aural memory may be a bit vague. Al and I have discussed for years the effect of subwoofers with mini monitors. We have different opinions on the subject. I attempted two times to integrate subs in my system with the Mini IIs and was not successful. I owned two JL Audio F110 subs and later tried a REL sub on Al's raised sub platform. Perhaps the problem was my room, or there was simply an incompatibility issue with the integration attempts. I always heard trade offs. Coherence was a problem, and the subs seemed to detract from the clarity of the Mini IIs. One does not read many instances of the Mini II being used successfully with subs. In fact I asked Alon Wolf about getting a pair of Magico Subs for my Mini IIs, and he suggested getting a bigger speaker like my Q3 and selling the MIni II. The gap between the midrange and sub is just too great, IMO, and that of Magico.
Al seems to like a slightly richer sound with a fuller lower midrange/upper bass than I do. I prefer overall clarity and coherence and am willing to sacrifice the lower registers somewhat. I've never really heard a mini/sub system where I don't hear the subs. In some sense, this describes the differences between the sounds of our two systems, both then with the Mini II, and now with the Q3. We have slightly different preferences, even though as one audio buddy mentioned to me the other day, we both use the BSO as one of our references. We may hear the same system or live performance, while sitting right next to each other, and yet we hear or focus on different things, and prefer different things.
My memory tells me that the Mini II is more extended than Al's mini speakers, both his first pair , and then his two Ref 3A models. I was very satisfied without subs for the music I listened to at the time. With the Q3s, I now listen more to larger scale classical that the Mini IIs could not portray as well. I also used to ask Al to turn off his subs at times when listening to his system because I liked the purity of that sound more when listening to smaller scale music like string quartets. I no longer do that because his system sounds different and much better now with the new gear and zero toe-in, but I suspect he also found my requests a bit tiresome.
Another factor is that Al openly discusses his preference for being able to adjust the bass output level for various recordings. He enjoys this adjustability to suit his listening pleasure while I prefer to hear the recording as is.
So, Al and I have some differences regarding our opinions about subs with mini monitors. My experience is quite limited. I think Al has more knowledge and experience combining the two. In fact, we first met when I contacted him after reading about his system being mini-monitor based,as was mine. I reached out to him and we discovered that we live just 15 minutes from each other. The rest is history, as they say.
Having written that, here is how I would describe my memory of my system with the Mini II versus his current system with mini-monitor plus two subs: I preferred my old system with Mini IIs to Al's old system, especially when he had only one REL sub with his old gear. My system was more resolving with fewer compromises. However, it was not as extended, it had a smaller sound, and the stage was not nearly as deep, but for the music I listened to, it sounded very convincing and right to me. It did have lots of dynamics and was incredibly coherent and resolving. Al's system was not as smooth sounding and suffered from some high frequencies sharpness or brightness which may have been caused by his digital or his older speakers. I don't really know.
We have both moved on from those older systems. I have fuller range Q3s now and can play and enjoy large scale jazz and classical. My system is now much more capable. His new speakers are also much better than what he had and they are now better integrated with his two new JL Audio subwoofers. His digital is much better sorted out, and his electronics are very good. I thoroughly enjoy both systems now, and I think he does as well, though I suspect we each prefer our own system over our good friend's.
The two systems do sound different and they reflect their owner's current tastes and preferences. They do sound similar in many respects, but I would say the tonal balance is what differs most. Al was over the other night listening to my system and he preferred my MSL Sig Gold/SME V-12 combination while I preferred my new vdh Master Sig/3012R combination. I would describe the primary difference as one of tonal balance where the MSL/V-12 is slightly fuller, richer sounding in the lower midrange to upper bass. It is a more ripe sound, which is what I hear in Al's system. I find the vdh/3012R to be more timbrally accurate, more dynamic, and slightly cleaner sounding, though I also very much like the other combination for what it offers, which is why I so enjoy going to visit Al and hearing his system.
I enjoyed my time with the Mini II (boy, that channels MikeL's language
I hope that answers your interesting question.
Both are sealed. I think Al’s subs are sealed but his main speakers are not but you should ask him.
Thank you so much for taking time to describe Peter. You wrote it so well and not giving only system sound description but yours and Al's preferences too. For me, it is a must to learn about ones preferences and his system type sound and character to really take data point from him for my benefit. I really appreciate valuable feedbacks and experiences you and Al revealing in the Sublime thread and this thread.Hello Tang,
That is an interesting question. Now with Al's suggestion that I comment, I will try to answer it.
I sold my Mini IIs over two years ago so my aural memory may be a bit vague. Al and I have discussed for years the effect of subwoofers with mini monitors. We have different opinions on the subject. I attempted two times to integrate subs in my system with the Mini IIs and was not successful. I owned two JL Audio F110 subs and later tried a REL sub on Al's raised sub platform. Perhaps the problem was my room, or there was simply an incompatibility issue with the integration attempts. I always heard trade offs. Coherence was a problem, and the subs seemed to detract from the clarity of the Mini IIs. One does not read many instances of the Mini II being used successfully with subs. In fact I asked Alon Wolf about getting a pair of Magico Subs for my Mini IIs, and he suggested getting a bigger speaker like my Q3 and selling the MIni II. The gap between the midrange and sub is just too great, IMO, and that of Magico.
Al seems to like a slightly richer sound with a fuller lower midrange/upper bass than I do. I prefer overall clarity and coherence and am willing to sacrifice the lower registers somewhat. I've never really heard a mini/sub system where I don't hear the subs. In some sense, this describes the differences between the sounds of our two systems, both then with the Mini II, and now with the Q3. We have slightly different preferences, even though as one audio buddy mentioned to me the other day, we both use the BSO as one of our references. We may hear the same system or live performance, while sitting right next to each other, and yet we hear or focus on different things, and prefer different things.
My memory tells me that the Mini II is more extended than Al's mini speakers, both his first pair , and then his two Ref 3A models. I was very satisfied without subs for the music I listened to at the time. With the Q3s, I now listen more to larger scale classical that the Mini IIs could not portray as well. I also used to ask Al to turn off his subs at times when listening to his system because I liked the purity of that sound more when listening to smaller scale music like string quartets. I no longer do that because his system sounds different and much better now with the new gear and zero toe-in, but I suspect he also found my requests a bit tiresome.
Another factor is that Al openly discusses his preference for being able to adjust the bass output level for various recordings. He enjoys this adjustability to suit his listening pleasure while I prefer to hear the recording as is.
So, Al and I have some differences regarding our opinions about subs with mini monitors. My experience is quite limited. I think Al has more knowledge and experience combining the two. In fact, we first met when I contacted him after reading about his system being mini-monitor based,as was mine. I reached out to him and we discovered that we live just 15 minutes from each other. The rest is history, as they say.
Having written that, here is how I would describe my memory of my system with the Mini II versus his current system with mini-monitor plus two subs: I preferred my old system with Mini IIs to Al's old system, especially when he had only one REL sub with his old gear. My system was more resolving with fewer compromises. However, it was not as extended, it had a smaller sound, and the stage was not nearly as deep, but for the music I listened to, it sounded very convincing and right to me. It did have lots of dynamics and was incredibly coherent and resolving. Al's system was not as smooth sounding and suffered from some high frequencies sharpness or brightness which may have been caused by his digital or his older speakers. I don't really know.
We have both moved on from those older systems. I have fuller range Q3s now and can play and enjoy large scale jazz and classical. My system is now much more capable. His new speakers are also much better than what he had and they are now better integrated with his two new JL Audio subwoofers. His digital is much better sorted out, and his electronics are very good. I thoroughly enjoy both systems now, and I think he does as well, though I suspect we each prefer our own system over our good friend's.
The two systems do sound different and they reflect their owner's current tastes and preferences. They do sound similar in many respects, but I would say the tonal balance is what differs most. Al was over the other night listening to my system and he preferred my MSL Sig Gold/SME V-12 combination while I preferred my new vdh Master Sig/3012R combination. I would describe the primary difference as one of tonal balance where the MSL/V-12 is slightly fuller, richer sounding in the lower midrange to upper bass. It is a more ripe sound, which is what I hear in Al's system. I find the vdh/3012R to be more timbrally accurate, more dynamic, and slightly cleaner sounding, though I also very much like the other combination for what it offers, which is why I so enjoy going to visit Al and hearing his system.
I enjoyed my time with the Mini II (boy, that channels MikeL's language
I hope that answers your interesting question.
Tang
I am surprised with sealed subs and sealed monitors that you weren't able to get an acceptable blend between the monitors and subs. What kind of adjustments did the subs have? Mine was pretty flexible (no DSP but still a lot of controls for slope and Q, etc.) and servo controlled (an old but very good Mirage bipolar sub) and with conventional vented loadings seemed to work fine but with TQWT (a type of horn loading) it never was synched up in time correctly and this was audible on many tracks.
Brad, I don't know what you mean by "acceptable". The two JL Audio F110 subs had many controls for level, slope, cutoff, Q, and I think DSP calibration with a mic. I tried for a month to integrate them with my Mini IIs and then Jim Smith tried to do it. He improved on my efforts. When we were done, it was not bad, but there were tradeoffs. I'm sure some would prefer the greater extension, but to my ears, it came at the cost of slightly less coherence, and purity/clarity in the rest of the spectrum. So, Jim and I decided to not use the subs. I sold them the next week.
To get back to Al's thread and his system:
In Al's former system, there were clearly times when I preferred the sound without his subs, and Al preferred it with the subs. "Acceptable" is a relative term and has meaning only to the subjective listener. I have not recently asked Al to hear his system without the subs. I go there to hear music and enjoy my time with Al. Asking the host to make adjustments is no longer my interest, though I would be curious to hear the difference now with his lack of toe in.
Ultimately, driver integration or coherence is one of Magico's strong suits and one reason that I am attracted to the brand. I have heard that quality in almost every speaker model from them that I have demoed. When the owner, Alon Wolf, told me specifically during a demo at Goodwins that I would be better off buying one of their three-way speakers instead of trying to integrate their Mini II with a pair of their own subs, that tells me something. I could have easily spent more money on one Q sub, or two S subs than I did on my pair of Q3s. (Perhaps he was hoping I would buy a new pair of Q3s for $40K
) Regardless, I trust Wolf's assertion that I would not have been happy with the results.Al is happy combining his two subs with his Ref 3A speakers. And I like that sound, but there are trade offs, IMO, just like there are with different turntables. Look how many members have multiple tables/arms just to get different flavors. My subs with my Mini II presented a different flavor than my Mini II alone. Some would have prefered that, others the Minis alone, as I did.
I suspect with my Q3s now that if my room could handle it, I would be very happy with a Q sub or pair of S subs in my system. Based on previous auditions with Magico three way speakers, their subs integrate extremely well with their larger speakers. The Mini II not so much.
Magico does combine the two-way A1 speakers, which have similar driver size as the Mini II, with the ASUB.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m not saying it would sound bad, I’m just saying there are trade-offs because of the gap between the subwoofer and the mid range driver, at least in my system with the mini two And at the time magico recommended against it.
I suspect that A sub will sound better with the A3or A5 speaker. I have not heard any of those combinations.
It might also sound quite acceptable in a low budget system or a home theater set up but I think Brad was asking me about the magico mini two which at the time was there state of the art speaker and it did produce very good sound within a limited range and it was not designed to be paired with a subwoofer as far as I know.
Brad, I don't know what you mean by "acceptable". The two JL Audio F110 subs had many controls for level, slope, cutoff, Q, and I think DSP calibration with a mic. I tried for a month to integrate them with my Mini IIs and then Jim Smith tried to do it. He improved on my efforts. When we were done, it was not bad, but there were tradeoffs. I'm sure some would prefer the greater extension, but to my ears, it came at the cost of slightly less coherence, and purity/clarity in the rest of the spectrum. So, Jim and I decided to not use the subs. I sold them the next week.
To get back to Al's thread and his system:
In Al's former system, there were clearly times when I preferred the sound without his subs, and Al preferred it with the subs. "Acceptable" is a relative term and has meaning only to the subjective listener. I have not recently asked Al to hear his system without the subs. I go there to hear music and enjoy my time with Al. Asking the host to make adjustments is no longer my interest, though I would be curious to hear the difference now with his lack of toe in.
Ultimately, driver integration or coherence is one of Magico's strong suits and one reason that I am attracted to the brand. I have heard that quality in almost every speaker model from them that I have demoed. When the owner, Alon Wolf, told me specifically during a demo at Goodwins that I would be better off buying one of their three-way speakers instead of trying to integrate their Mini II with a pair of their own subs, that tells me something. I could have easily spent more money on one Q sub, or two S subs than I did on my pair of Q3s. (Perhaps he was hoping I would buy a new pair of Q3s for $40K
Al is happy combining his two subs with his Ref 3A speakers. And I like that sound, but there are trade offs, IMO, just like there are with different turntables. Look how many members have multiple tables/arms just to get different flavors. My subs with my Mini II presented a different flavor than my Mini II alone. Some would have prefered that, others the Minis alone, as I did.
I suspect with my Q3s now that if my room could handle it, I would be very happy with a Q sub or pair of S subs in my system. Based on previous auditions with Magico three way speakers, their subs integrate extremely well with their larger speakers. The Mini II not so much.
Coherence has been a BIG thing with me for at least the last 20 years or so. One of the big appeals to me for large ribbon or electrostatic speakers (especially electrostats) was coherence. It is also why both my speaker systems are two-way or augmented full range drivers as I find these simply more coherent than three-way and up systems. What was interesting about my Ref 3a speakers was that I was able to get a seamless blend with the sub...but only by putting the sub IN FRONT of the main speakers by about 6-12 inches and next to one of the speakers. Putting them way behind or in a corner far from the main speakers will nearly always result in a strange and time incorrect bass...DSP won't help in this case. A friend of mine finally got his two Rel Gibraltar subs to blend with his Thiels, which are time coherent and picky about sub positioning, when he moved the subs from behind to in front of the speakers based on my recommendation. Then it was awesome.
Aries Cerat did the same thing this year in Munich. He had new huge horn subs with like 4 meter long folded horns. He had them a good 4 meters in front of the main speakers to account for the time delay (a conventional sub won't have such a long delay but a long horn will). It looked really strange to most people and many doubted they were even on because the perception of the bass was back 4 meters with the main speakers and not where the subs were visually located. Recall that deep bass cannot be localized so it was the upper bass that was giving the location cues and that was coming from the main speakers. This only really works if you are time aligned or close to time aligned, otherwise far away will sound disconnected due to a large group delay. By time aligning the bass though it was a superb, tight, fast and totally integrated bass...gobsmacking really.
When you had subs did you try to put them next to the Mini IIs or slightly out in front of the speakers (like half a sub length)? If not, then a lot of the problems you experienced in getting coherence cannot really be solved.
Cool speakers. Have you ever tried putting the subs up with or slightly in front of the main speakers? You have them quite far behind, which creates a large group delay and might affect impact on the bass as the synch between mid-upper bass and deep bass will not be so good. Given that the Reflektors are time-aligned (or at least the older Ref3as were) it might be significant. I never got superb coherence until I put my sub around 10 inches in front of the speakers.
Jim Smith and I moved the subs quite close and to the sides, but never out in front because that would be unexceptable to me in our formal living room. Guests walking into the subs? No. We rotated them in all directions and in lots of locations.
Anyway, this thread is about Al's system. We can discuss my system further in my system thread if you want. I have suggested to Al that he try different sub locations in his room. Right now, you can see from the photo that they are far behind and up against the front wall. You can ask him about what he has tried. He is very satisfied with this location.
THX Peter, I just asked him. Pity you didn't try them out front because you might have had a different outcome...but I get the whole living room thing...mine system has it's own room.
That is the weird part. I have my subs behind the main speakers, and in theory this should not work. But for some reason, it does. My bass is not just clean, but rhythmically highly coherent and tight. In fact, listeners routinely comment on my good rhythm.
There were some instances where I doubted that perhaps I might have an ever so slight deep bass delay on some kick drum, for example, but the better my main speaker set-up got, including the speaker stands *) (important!), and then the pre-amplification, the less I could hear any problem. The jazz rock of Trio of Doom, for example, should be highly revealing of any problems, with prominent bass guitar and a lot of kick drum (including sequences of quick repeats), and rhythms that are both intricate and infectious (YouTube videos of the music reveal how bad and uninspiring there the rhythm is compared to high quality reproduction; it's really, really tricky to get it right). But I just cannot hear problems, real or nervously imagined. In fact, I have not heard elsewhere a rhythmically better reproduction of that music than on my system. It just rocks like hell.
So no, I don't have an explanation for the extreme coherence of my bass, but it is what it is. Fortunately so.
________________
*) Sound Anchors Signature stands
Last edited:
A Schiit Show
So, today, I had to hear for myself what this zero toe-in/parallel speaker placements is all about, and I told Al I would be very frank. So he asked me to be truthful and transparent.
I told Al, as I walked in, that "it's been done", so I was already predisposed, having tried it myself decades ago. Truth be told, I have never heard this set-up work well, but I remain open-minded... The goal, as stated, was to get a big (or bigger) sound, as one hears in some live venues, and as Al wrote before, where's the pinpoint imaging in a live event. Indeed, this is something I has said a number of times myself... in addition, this was also an attempt to tone down the treble; but...
... when we try to make a recording something that it isn't, I feel the result cannot be good. Forcing close-mic'd recordings to sound diffuse in Al's recent set-up, in order to kinda get a diffuse sound as in some live events, does not work well, IMO. These kinds of recordings were never meant to sound what they are not.
Within 30 seconds and from the first track, I heard sonic confusion, reflections, loss of instrumental body, and phase-related distortions with strings, probably the result of reflections. The picture did not change with the second and third CD. Anyone aware of multi-path issues in FM tuners will immediately understand.
At that point, we started experimenting with toe-in again, settling for some 7 degrees inward. Instrumental body increased again, the tweeter DID NOT sound harsh, and the sound became really enjoyable again. One of the arguments I made was: if you can get such good imaging with proper toe-in, why give it up with the parallel set-up, especially when great recordings sound great!
My suggestion to Al was as follows: set up the speakers for the best imaging and midrange presentation, then tone down the tweeter with resistors if necessary; and if one wants bigger sound, one should get bigger speakers. Trying to make recordings what they can never be is, I think, fundamentally flawed.
I am really glad Al was very open to accommodating criticism and being quite accepting of it.
The good news is that, though we started with a shiit show, we quickly switched to a great Schiit Show. I mentioned to Al that my son now has a number of instruments at home: guitar, euphonium, two trombones, a piano and now a tenor saxophone. The latter sounds really BLUNT, so I asked Al to play me some sax; he found a great recording and the solo sax was really blunt, though a little thin on the low end... well, big deal. No, actually, the entire presentation was a really big deal! Well done.
I really enjoyed the vast majority of my session today after the toe-in, commenting about how quiet the system is and how great it can sound. Funny also, Al has a basic Bassie 88 edition and an XRCD re-master that I also own, and the original was so much better than the XRCD, a result of different mastering, except in one area: the treble on the XRCD was smoother.
Bottom line: I don't get this parallel speaker placement; and I really enjoyed the Schiit Show, not the shiit show.
So, today, I had to hear for myself what this zero toe-in/parallel speaker placements is all about, and I told Al I would be very frank. So he asked me to be truthful and transparent.
I told Al, as I walked in, that "it's been done", so I was already predisposed, having tried it myself decades ago. Truth be told, I have never heard this set-up work well, but I remain open-minded... The goal, as stated, was to get a big (or bigger) sound, as one hears in some live venues, and as Al wrote before, where's the pinpoint imaging in a live event. Indeed, this is something I has said a number of times myself... in addition, this was also an attempt to tone down the treble; but...
... when we try to make a recording something that it isn't, I feel the result cannot be good. Forcing close-mic'd recordings to sound diffuse in Al's recent set-up, in order to kinda get a diffuse sound as in some live events, does not work well, IMO. These kinds of recordings were never meant to sound what they are not.
Within 30 seconds and from the first track, I heard sonic confusion, reflections, loss of instrumental body, and phase-related distortions with strings, probably the result of reflections. The picture did not change with the second and third CD. Anyone aware of multi-path issues in FM tuners will immediately understand.
At that point, we started experimenting with toe-in again, settling for some 7 degrees inward. Instrumental body increased again, the tweeter DID NOT sound harsh, and the sound became really enjoyable again. One of the arguments I made was: if you can get such good imaging with proper toe-in, why give it up with the parallel set-up, especially when great recordings sound great!
My suggestion to Al was as follows: set up the speakers for the best imaging and midrange presentation, then tone down the tweeter with resistors if necessary; and if one wants bigger sound, one should get bigger speakers. Trying to make recordings what they can never be is, I think, fundamentally flawed.
I am really glad Al was very open to accommodating criticism and being quite accepting of it.
The good news is that, though we started with a shiit show, we quickly switched to a great Schiit Show. I mentioned to Al that my son now has a number of instruments at home: guitar, euphonium, two trombones, a piano and now a tenor saxophone. The latter sounds really BLUNT, so I asked Al to play me some sax; he found a great recording and the solo sax was really blunt, though a little thin on the low end... well, big deal. No, actually, the entire presentation was a really big deal! Well done.
I really enjoyed the vast majority of my session today after the toe-in, commenting about how quiet the system is and how great it can sound. Funny also, Al has a basic Bassie 88 edition and an XRCD re-master that I also own, and the original was so much better than the XRCD, a result of different mastering, except in one area: the treble on the XRCD was smoother.
Bottom line: I don't get this parallel speaker placement; and I really enjoyed the Schiit Show, not the shiit show.
Thank you, Ack, for your visit and excellent write up. I am glad you enjoyed the sound after the toe in, which was easy enough to accomplish.
Interesting that with toe out you heard loss of instrumental body, as well as these phase issues and reflections, which I don't (except on one recording), but from many previous experiences I have already concluded that everyone hears differently, so I am not really surprised. Your assessment for your experience is just as valid as mine for my own experience. While Peter prefers the full toe out, Ian also prefers a slight toe in in my system.
The issue with toe out is to avoid pinpointing, not to get a bigger sound. I heard more or less pinpoint imaging also from Rockport Lyra speakers in the large room at Goodwin's. Yet while I don't think the soundstage in my room is small (some audiophile friends have found it quite big), the soundstage there was considerably wider because of the big room. That was the bigger sound, for the most part. Some images were also larger on the Rockports in that room, but these images tend to be bigger in my system as well even with more toe in, but the relative size again is restricted mainly by the room size. So I think the issue for the big sound is less the speaker size and more the room size.
As for the body of sound, which also contributes to the impression of size, that is a different matter. While the left hand of piano fares well in my system, and on some recordings I have a quite powerful orchestral sound, some large speakers (including the mentioned Rockport Lyra) can do things especially in the 'power range', the low to very low midrange, that my speakers, or 'regular' floor standers, cannot do. But such large speakers would not fit well in my room. On the other hand, my speakers obviously cannot fill a large room.
***
I also enjoyed the sound with more toe in, at least from where I sat. I'll have to compare again from the sweet spot. -- The employment of resistors to adjust treble output is a good idea as I heard in your system; fortunately I can also do that since the speakers have a bi-wiring option.
Isn't it interesting how different the two masterings of Count Basie's 88th Street album sounded? I agree with your assessment of the regular CD vs. the XRCD, but of course the XRCD process as such can also deliver stellar results. My preferred Art Pepper plus Eleven CD which I played for you is mastered with the 'K2' process as in XRCD, and superior to the regular CD. The XRCD of Holst Planets sounds excellent.
Interesting that with toe out you heard loss of instrumental body, as well as these phase issues and reflections, which I don't (except on one recording), but from many previous experiences I have already concluded that everyone hears differently, so I am not really surprised. Your assessment for your experience is just as valid as mine for my own experience. While Peter prefers the full toe out, Ian also prefers a slight toe in in my system.
The issue with toe out is to avoid pinpointing, not to get a bigger sound. I heard more or less pinpoint imaging also from Rockport Lyra speakers in the large room at Goodwin's. Yet while I don't think the soundstage in my room is small (some audiophile friends have found it quite big), the soundstage there was considerably wider because of the big room. That was the bigger sound, for the most part. Some images were also larger on the Rockports in that room, but these images tend to be bigger in my system as well even with more toe in, but the relative size again is restricted mainly by the room size. So I think the issue for the big sound is less the speaker size and more the room size.
As for the body of sound, which also contributes to the impression of size, that is a different matter. While the left hand of piano fares well in my system, and on some recordings I have a quite powerful orchestral sound, some large speakers (including the mentioned Rockport Lyra) can do things especially in the 'power range', the low to very low midrange, that my speakers, or 'regular' floor standers, cannot do. But such large speakers would not fit well in my room. On the other hand, my speakers obviously cannot fill a large room.
***
I also enjoyed the sound with more toe in, at least from where I sat. I'll have to compare again from the sweet spot. -- The employment of resistors to adjust treble output is a good idea as I heard in your system; fortunately I can also do that since the speakers have a bi-wiring option.
Isn't it interesting how different the two masterings of Count Basie's 88th Street album sounded? I agree with your assessment of the regular CD vs. the XRCD, but of course the XRCD process as such can also deliver stellar results. My preferred Art Pepper plus Eleven CD which I played for you is mastered with the 'K2' process as in XRCD, and superior to the regular CD. The XRCD of Holst Planets sounds excellent.
Correction, for weekend warrior theory it should not work. According to to actual theory as long as it’s within a wavelength you’re fine.
Simply put, most recordings made in studios should not sound particularly spacious and normally quite upfront. B&W used to tailor (maybe they still do) their speaker’s response to have a dip in the presence region of the FR to push some of the forwardness in many recordings back in the soundstage.
Even a lot of classical recordings are pretty close mic’d and therefore will sound more like front row (or onstage!) than mid hall.
For most recordings, I like the “They are here” presence (as long as tonal balance is correct) because they are made that way. On a recording with real (or artificial) depth, it should then sound more like “I am there”.
To have Playback all one way or the other indicates something not right in a system (unless that is the specific goal of course). A system should be a chameleon from recording to recording...if you don’t like a particular perspective then one would need to select recordings that have encoded the desired perspective.
Not all live sounds spacious and fuzzy. Sit close to the stage and it is quite immediate and well defined. Good amplified concerts (like Nik Baertsch Jazz shows I frequent in Zürich) are very direct and punch you in the gut (percussion especially).
I tried my horns straight ahead when I first got them and they lost significant life and energy...Toe-in was essential to having the right balance and I still get plenty of depth when it is on the recording.
Similar threads
