One speaker/system or multiples?

[Bobvin]

Over in the Magico M7 thread discussion about value propositions of course comes up (everytime a new uber-expensive product is announced). Many audiophiles have a monogamous approach, building the “one” system they hope checks all the boxes. But we don’t have to be tied down, with audio we can play the field if we choose. Given the exceptional quality of many offerings these days, from components to speakers, is there really such a huge delta between, say, an Alexx V and and XVX, or M9 vs M7, that it might be more fun to have an Alexx V, an Alsyvox Botticell, or something like Diesis Roma (not these brands per se) vs one XVX?

I have friends with multiple systems, real lovers of the different flavors available, and they all sound really great and are fun to listen to.

Would you cheat on your system?

 

[bryans]

If you go multiple systems how does one have the time to listen to all of them. That would be a great problem to have.

 

[JackD201]

I'm a two system guy. Main and bedroom. It's been that way since I got married back in 1997. On average I think the bedroom gets more playing time because I use it to get going in the morning and to slow and chill at night. In transit sometimes I just prefer silence so I don't count the car systems (Burmester in the MBs and custom Accuton/Alpine in the M3).

I don't consider it cheating LOL

 

[Tangram]

The purist in me says stick with one system and make it the best you can. You can only listen to one at a time anyway.

 

[Republicoftexas69]

I have 2 systems, summer and winter, tubes and solid state.

 

[thomask]

I have three different speakers on the same room.

Altec A7, Lansche 4.1 and Scaena 3.2

Altec A7 is not connected now but will be sometime next year.

I take turns between Lansche 4.1 and Scaena 3.1 augmented by pair of Rel 31 subwoofers,

Although Lansce 4.1 give more refined treble due to plasma tweeters, I tend to play Sceana 3.1 more often since the latter give more transparent and realistic soundstage.

I enjoy different flavors out of different speakers like various wines.

 

[the sound of Tao]

Over in the Magico M7 thread discussion about value propositions of course comes up (everytime a new uber-expensive product is announced). Many audiophiles have a monogamous approach, building the “one” system they hope checks all the boxes. But we don’t have to be tied down, with audio we can play the field if we choose. Given the exceptional quality of many offerings these days, from components to speakers, is there really such a huge delta between, say, an Alexx V and and XVX, or M9 vs M7, that it might be more fun to have an Alexx V, an Alsyvox Botticell, or something like Diesis Roma (not these brands per se) vs one XVX?

I have friends with multiple systems, real lovers of the different flavors available, and they all sound really great and are fun to listen to.

Would you cheat on your system?

I understand the idea of having a polyamory of gear sets… I’m trying to get myself down to maybe two pairs of speakers over the next year down from four (going on five) speakers atm. Christoph and Milan (Lagonda) also both probably get the thinking and/or the predicament… it’s not a disease I’m sure but the rationale for two setups for me is that I find myself regularly in two fundamentally opposed states of listening.

Music as a backdrop for life (music for working to and to start the day or to share when having friends and family around for drinks or eating together)…

… and then also music to get carried away by… the main system…with completely focussed/dedicated listening (mostly for myself but also sometimes with some music focussed friends and family). If I could only have one setup it’d be this still but I’d probably give myself a less focussed listening option by having a SET and a second (not SET) amp to turn the music intoxication and intensity down a notch if needed.

For me Harbeth 40.2s currently do the fill the space with music to create a backdrop to life beautifully. They do all music and can easily fill a room. You can still fall into them in a focused way when they capture you to draw you into music or you can have a conversation at dinner or a drink or while working at home while they run a musical undercurrent or background for day to day life.

The larger pureaudioproject quintet OB horns are best I have here at full deep dive music engagement for me. I don’t use the mesmerise word easily but they just do it to/for me. That’s why I’m unlikely to let them go unless I can better them at that same thing with likely another OB horn. That is part of the coming years exploration at putting together another different horn OB using the big quintet horns as my precedent benchmark.

The Magnepan 20.7s I have had here waiting for another space in the next house but I can’t justify having them going into my next phase no matter how hard I struggle to hold onto them. The Maggie 20.7s can do some fantastic sonic things and give forth moments of concert grand piano realism (love piano). I’ve thought about keeping them for a home theatre setup and then the audiophile fancy fairy hits me with the gear setup madness wand and how I could even do additional OB bass towers with 4 x 18 inch Audio Excellence woofers either side. Hmmm keeping them is too dangerous and not really viable.

If I had a different budget (than reality) I’d think I’d be having a listen to the Diesis triode with Kondo Ongaku and maybe flipping between a Kondo pre or a silver 10y Thomas Mayer. If I have all that then I’ve got myself back in to analogue as well so the Kondo needs a phono

BUT with a different budget again I could easily see some Alsyvox for another setup with another Kondo amp or Trafo Drina if I’m playing with unicorn like imponderables. But that is back to three setups omg four with a WE or Klangfilm vintage setup… thank goodness I have a real budget… this stuff is a disease!

Bob thankfully apparently I only have a drinking problem at this point.

 

[joey_v]

Very good question.

I have a main system but I have contemplated having a second set of speakers next to the main speakers. I know it's not ideal, but it's cool to have a different sound at times.

 

[AudioGod]

It's like having one wife or 2
One is enough for me.

 

[Another Johnson]

It’s not cheating, of course. In my case I have a modest HT room and a decent two channel room. No competition.

But at one time when we had multiple houses, and in one case multiple buildings, I enjoyed having a good two channel system in each structure.

The simultaneous presence of multiple systems in my circle of living gave me a chance to experiment with several companies at a time, and there were clear winners. My discernment improved with comparisons. My tolerance for quirky interfaces were tested. Speakers were proved and disproved. Wires were revealed as significant.
Because of all the comparisons, it was expensive. Upgrades for one system are expensive enough. I’ve often had gear enough for four or five systems, but I think that three might be the most I’ve had running seriously at one time.

I have NOT had multiple 6 figure systems at the same time. One 6 figure and one or two 5 figure has been my limit.

 

[bonzo75]

If I was given a million, or two, or three, etc, I will buy two speaker systems.

One system will be Vyger Red Sparrow Mayer 46 Pnoe. The other will be a dual FLH like Altec 817 or Leif types. People might think they are both SETs horns system so similar, but they sound quite different. There will be another table with Schroder LT and Dava, will add a tape deck.

I could try to have a common set of electronics, or experiment with Kondo, or get a custom SET amp built.

Most of the remaining money will go in records where the SQ benefits are. Just don't think spending more on gear on one system betters those - the more expensive systems were just trying to put one expensive bandage on a wound caused by another expensive component

 

[Al M.]

The purist in me says stick with one system and make it the best you can. You can only listen to one at a time anyway.

For me it is not about different flavors, but about different dimensions.

Had I the rooms and resources, I would go for two systems, one for large-scale music in a large room, another for small-scale music in a medium-sized room. You really need large speakers in a large room to make presentation of large-scale music optimal. In a medium-sized room (like mine) obviously the dimensions of large-scale music will suffer, even though it still sounds much bigger than small-scale music. It is unavoidable.

Yet if you optimize for large scale music, like an orchestra of 120 players, in a large room, dimensions for chamber music will be overblown and too wide. There is no string quartet where the players sit 20 or 30 feet apart, but avoiding that kind of presentation will be very difficult with speakers far apart in a large room.

On the other hand, the presentation in a medium-sized room, with speakers closer together, will be more ideal for intimate music, such as a string quartet, solo players or other small ensemble.

Even some famous concert venues (like the Philharmonie Berlin) have two halls, a large one for large-scale concerts and a smaller one for chamber music, for good reason. No single concert hall can do all dimensions, large-scale and small-scale, equally well. And so can no single system.

Now, try to convince me otherwise.

 

[bonzo75]

For me it is not about different flavors, but about different dimensions.

Had I the rooms and resources, I would go for two systems, one for large-scale music in a large room, another for small-scale music in a medium-sized room. You really need large speakers in a large room to make presentation of large-scale music optimal. In a medium-sized room (like mine) obviously the dimensions of large-scale music will suffer, even though it still sounds much bigger than small-scale music. It is unavoidable.

Yet if you optimize for large scale music, like an orchestra of 120 players, in a large room, dimensions for chamber music will be overblown and too wide. There is no string quartet where the players sit 20 or 30 feet apart, but avoiding that kind of presentation will be very difficult with speakers far apart in a large room.

On the other hand, the presentation in a medium-sized room, with speakers closer together, will be more ideal for intimate music, such as a string quartet, solo players or other small ensemble.

Even some famous concert venues (like the Philharmonie Berlin) have two halls, a large one for large-scale concerts and a smaller one for chamber music, for good reason. No single concert hall can do all dimensions, large-scale and small-scale, equally well. And so can no single system.

Now, try to convince me otherwise.

and my favourite concert hall, Sheldonian at Oxford, built in the 1600s, can do both. It does symphonies better than the big halls and does small scale including solo better than wigmore hall and the likes.

best orchestras and small scale I heard were on the vyger Mayer pnoe. With the right records.

both were extremely good on dual FLH too. The one thing the dual FLH are certainly better at was rock.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

second system? my perspective has always been as far as system performance, that if pushed far enough i can get my room and system to approach what horns or panels or dipoles can do with a dynamic speaker and have a higher ceiling. have i got all the way there? in my mind absolutely. but.......i suppose it depends on who you ask and their biases. so i'd rather just enjoy my all out effort and not worry about it.

yet, i do have second and third systems which are enjoyable for what i ask them to do. i have a full blown Home Theater in the house that is formidable with the Trinnov, 9.3.6 speaker system with 3 Funk Audio subs, that can really boggie with it's own thing, and upstairs i have my sports and streaming video content watching space with Dolby Atmos surround 'lite'. both scratch every itch my 2 channel big rig misses.

sure, i could risk my 50 year (in 60 days) marriage adding a horn system in my family room or living room in the main house. but that's not ever happening.

 

[bonzo75]

There is no risk to a 50 year marriage Mike. Just do it

 

[Mike Lavigne]

There is no risk to a 50 year marriage Mike. Just do it

spoken like a true expert at home living space allocation.

 

[Al M.]

and my favourite concert hall, Sheldonian at Oxford, built in the 1600s, can do both. It does symphonies better than the big halls and does small scale including solo better than wigmore hall and the likes.

Be that as it may, any hall is still a compromise. And no concert hall will allow for the same intimate experience of chamber music as you have in a large living room as "house" concert setting (or in a studio room, for that matter, where chamber music recordings may be made).

best orchestras and small scale I heard were on the vyger Mayer pnoe. With the right records.

both were extremely good on dual FLH too. The one thing the dual FLH are certainly better at was rock.

That is not my point. A competent system should be able to do both large-scale and small-scale very well sonically. And large-scale music should sound much bigger than small-scale music. My system can differentiate those dimensions too.

Yet I am talking not about mere sonics and relative dimensions, but about reproduction of absolute dimensions. You just can't reproduce anything close to the width of a full symphony orchestra, experienced from a close-up seat (which also corresponds more to the miking of many recordings), in less than a large room with large speakers (even then you might not quite get there, but that's a different story). But then small-scale dimensions will tend to not be correct on that system.

 

[steve59]

I was at a point when I had 3-4 pair of full range speakers at the same time, salon 2, usher be20dmd, persona 7f and Meridian dsp 8000seup and enjoyed swapping them around for their different trade offs, but in reality I was just not ready to commit to a single pair to build around.

 

[bonzo75]

Be that as it may, any hall is still a compromise. And no concert hall will allow for the same intimate experience of chamber music as you have in a large living room as "house" concert setting (or in a studio room, for that matter, where chamber music recordings may be made).

Amazing you have these rules, as they apply only to usual shoes box type concert halls. Like always, say something with confidence about what you have not experienced.

Yet I am talking not about mere sonics and relative dimensions, but about reproduction of absolute dimensions. You just can't reproduce anything close to the width of a full symphony orchestra, experienced from a close-up seat (which also corresponds more to the miking of many recordings), in less than a large room with large speakers (even then you might not quite get there, but that's a different story). But then small-scale dimensions will tend to not be correct on that system.

Well, with Pnoe and dual FLH, both of which are large, I can do both, max orchestral size and best small scale intimacy including solo.

 

[Al M.]

Amazing you have these rules, as they apply only to usual shoes box type concert halls. Like always, say something with confidence about what you have not experienced.

I have experienced many different concert halls over decades, both large and small, and many of them are not shoe box type. How many intimate "house" concerts have you experienced?