The big sound

[cjfrbw]

CJ, can you give us your impressions as to going to that 4th sub and what differences you found from using 3 subs? I also use the Geddes multi sub approach and am using 3 subs at the moment.

Dan

Dan,

I haven't had it too long yet, but each sub was an improvement and the last just smoothed things out some more, sort of like improving the laminar flow to a body of water or allowing the mass of air in the room to pluck and dampen with greater uniformity. I especially like the increased subtlety of the bass tone, which I guess must be masked when the excitement nodes are more active.

The third subwoofer above ear level was more dramatic than the fourth, but the fourth so far is also easily noticable. I think I am at the point of diminishing returns, but who knows, I don't have anyplace to put another subwoofer anyway. The last two are ten inchers, light, bass reflex types rated to 25 Hz. The first two are 15 inchers, rated down below 20Hz.

 

[cjfrbw]

mep,

I find your post to be offensive. You suggest that anyone who doesn't have a system producing a "big sound" can't have a valid opinion about analog versus digital. You then add the thought that anyone who doesn't have analog sources in their system now is also disqualified. You go on to assert that if someone quit using analog sources without having an expensive turntable and cartridge, their opinion is not valid.

You then ascribe people's loving digital to their treating their LPs badly. Does that apply to people on this forum who now prefer digital sources?

---
I read people's posts and decide whether they know what they are talking about and whether they reason correctly from that knowledge. If they don't get it right in their posts, I really don't care how expensive their gear is.

---
I am quite willing to respect other people preference for LPs and reel-to-reel tape. I would appreciate being allowed to express my own preference for digital source material without receiving audiophile putdowns. If you have pertinent facts and valid reasoning to offer, bring them.

Bill

It was a pretty good two-fer. Attacking the digital crowd with bassless allegations.

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

Mark (basspig), I take you seriously. I'm just afraid your bass output might alter my body's molecular structure

Thanks for the vote of (non?)confidence.

 

[Old Listener]

It was a pretty good two-fer. Attacking the digital crowd with bassless allegations.

Thanks for the humor.

Bill

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

mep,

I find your post to be offensive. You suggest that anyone who doesn't have a system producing a "big sound" can't have a valid opinion about analog versus digital. You then add the thought that anyone who doesn't have analog sources in their system now is also disqualified. You go on to assert that if someone quit using analog sources without having an expensive turntable and cartridge, their opinion is not valid.

You then ascribe people's loving digital to their treating their LPs badly. Does that apply to people on this forum who now prefer digital sources?

---
I read people's posts and decide whether they know what they are talking about and whether they reason correctly from that knowledge. If they don't get it right in their posts, I really don't care how expensive their gear is.

---
I am quite willing to respect other people preference for LPs and reel-to-reel tape. I would appreciate being allowed to express my own preference for digital source material without receiving audiophile putdowns. If you have pertinent facts and valid reasoning to offer, bring them.

Bill

Like I said in my post above,

in the often very polarized discussions that happen on audiophile boards, system profiles are used to dismiss opinions as often as they're used to place them in a context that is probably not accurate anyway.

Our "perspective" in our posts and opinions is the sum total of our audio experience, not the equipment in our current systems, and whatever someone else's opinion of it might be.

Tim

 

[rbbert]

My extensive experience over the years with both expensive analog and less expensive digital front-ends makes me somewhat impervious to attacks on my preference for digital. I know what I hear and I know what I like. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not so much analog as LP I have most problems appreciating, but either way for practical home use I prefer digital. The (very gradually) increasing availability of higher-than-CD resolution digital sources is a sign of hope for me ))

 

[FrantzM]

My extensive experience over the years with both expensive analog and less expensive digital front-ends makes me somewhat impervious to attacks on my preference for digital. I know what I hear and I know what I like. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not so much analog as LP I have most problems appreciating, but either way for practical home use I prefer digital. The (very gradually) increasing availability of higher-than-CD resolution digital sources is a sign of hope for me ))

Took the post from Old Listener to realize the (at the end amusing ) dig at digital.. I come from the same perspective. I experienced more than decent analog, not over the top superlative a-la-MikeL but in the realm of extremely good (Basis, Graham, Lyra then Koetsu cartridges) analog then experienced superlative digital ( Burmester, DCs, Esoteric, etc) and found myself listening to more digital than analog then to almost completely listening to digital and frankly while they sound different for the most part, I have already posted where my heart is ... Both analog and digital are capable of the "big stuff" and very truly digital is capable of bigger stuff if only because it has more dynamic range, one can discuss that very part but one will have to strain in subjectivity and opinions to prove the contrary ...
My former system especially when I went with the Geddes 3-sub aproach was fully capable of the vey big stuff... the Magnepan speakers almost all of them but the 3.6 and 20.1 can play bit, in fact they can end up playing big too consistently. Magnepan seem to require a little bit more average SPL to strut their wares. The soundstage thrown by Maggies is big and the overall sound big... If it is big one is talking about Ihad big... Now I have a Music Server (Thanks Gary!!! Benchmark DAC/Pre, Denon and Ultrasone Headphones and while I can say this is a revelation in term of realizing how easy we can become attached to room induced distortions and how not linear many (most) speakers are. An education if you will. I would call an headphone a requirement for any audiophile who wants to have true High Fidelity. I would dare repeat that a $500 headphones is less colored than any speaker one care to name... OTOH the music-in-your-head is not entirely satisfying .. I am itching to re-join the big stuff league but this will have to wait ...

@JackD201

Come one Man! Your humility is laudable but COME ON MAN!!!! You have the VSA VR9 !!!!!! It is a world class speakers and if it weren't for the VR 11 would be mentioned more often as one of the world's best speakers, bar none .. So COME ON MAN!! You have the big stuff ... ON this I am exposing you In this board when one thinks of "Extreme Systems" one thinks of Steve's and MikeL among yhr first .. Jack YOU ARE UP THERE with these guys and you are not alone.. I will in due time, expose some others but you are the first unexposed !

 

[mep]

Bill-I had to re-read my original post in order to see if I said something different than I thought I did which got your dander up. And I didn't. In my first paragraph, I merely asked how many people have the "big sound." I certainly never said that if you don't have analog in your system now then you are disqualified from talking about how it sounds. I did make an observation that many people who love the digits only can play back the digits while many of those who love analog can play back different digital mediums as well. The other point I did make and I thought I was quite clear on was that if you NEVER owned a good table and cartridge I would have a hard time taking anything you said about analog seriously. On the other hand, if you or anyone else had a good analog rig and gave it up for digital, that's fine. We all have to be happy at the end of the day. Again, I just want to know where you have been or where you are now when you make statements about how something sounds. It's all a matter of perspective. Relax Bill. I'm glad you are happy with where you are at. That's all that really matters.

 

[mep]

I have been upgrading my subwoofer array for the first time in a calculated (as opposed to sleazy, haphazard and random) manner. I implemented the Geddes array, and now just added a fourth subwoofer for good measure. It is amazing how much of the music is in those lower octaves. A smooth, un-peaky, powerful bass response makes the whole sound stage larger and clearer, through some kind of psycho-acoustic magic.
I can understand why individuals can be satisfied with a really enchanting midrange, but it does seem that those lower octaves were meant to be heard, and the music is not complete without them.

I couldn't agree more with everything you said. I'm happy for you that your well thought out sub integration is working so well for you.

 

[mep]

I've already said I have ears of clay -- can't afford the ARC equipment of days gone by, gotta' get the kids through college! Certainly won't claim any of my system matches yours, but here it is:

Pioneer SC-27 AVR
Oppo BDP-83 BD (CD/DVD) player
Samsung 52" LCD TV (can't recall the model off-hand)
Emotiva XPA-2 (L/R) and XPA-5 (center, surounds, rears) amps
Magnepan MG-IIIa (L/R), CC3 (center), MC1 (surrounds, rears) speakers
Two Rythmik F12 subwoofes (in parallel with MG-IIIa's so the AVR sees the L/R as full-range speakers; xovr ~ 45 Hz)
Couple dozen absorption panels strategically placed; calibrated by tweakng MCACC with RPlusD and an Earthworks measurement mic
Average frequency response is within 6 dB 10 Hz to 20 kHz, except I have intentionally shelved the range from perhaps 12 - 20 kHz down about 3 dB.

Reading the last of your post, I see my decades of analog is now worthless since I have not pulled my old TT (with a Magnepan UniPivot arm) out yet, and did indeed sell most of my 3000+ records years ago (have only about 300 or so left in storage), (gasp!) actually enjoy my CDs. Well, some of them, anyway. I lived through the time when CDs were introduced; they have come along way since then. At least, IMO. - Don

Your decades of analog experience is not worthless. You had a really good set up at one time. You also have some other qualifications that most of us don't. You are both an engineer and a musician which gives you a unique perspective on things which I certianly appreciate. I always respect your opinions Don.

 

[mep]

mep, is that a subtle, a very subtle dig at me possibly, just possibly ....

Frank-I don't know you so it must be your subconcious nagging at you.

 

[mep]

Great thread mep, I am as close as I probably ever will be to having a system that plays full range. Using the multiple sub approach has brought me the best bass response I have ever had in my room, while my main speakers cover the rest of the frequency spectrum very well. My system is a combination 2 channel and HT system using both tubes and solid state and I also enjoy digital as well as analog, I do not have the financial means to use the real high end gear that a lot of members here do, but what I do have gives me great listening pleasure.

Dan

Dan-I am happy that you enjoy your system and you enjoy both digital and analog. Having a full range system just makes things much more realistic and gets us closer to the truth that was recorded.

 

[mep]

I still have my Magnepan Uni-Pivot arm as well!! But I'm not a big fan of LP; if I had access to high-quality reasonably priced reel tapes that would be another story.

Interesting system, mep. Have you calculated your percentage investment in front-end, amplification and speakers as discussed in another thread here? I suspect you may have one of the lowest percentages (by system expense) in speakers of members of this forum.

Was that a dig at me and am I supposed to be offended now? Don't worry, I'm not offended. And no, I didn't do the calculations on percentages because I don't see the point. And really, how do you come up with a value for your components if they are not new and currently availabe for sale? Do you go by the new price or what you think they may bring on the used market? That decision will greatly skew your percentages. I chose my system components on what sounded the best for me at a price I could afford. I never worried about percentages and ratios when I made a decision to buy something. I am certainly aware that there are better speakers out there and I don't plan on this pair being my last. They cost around $5,400 for the pair which is chump change to some and a stretch for others. I do think they offer incredible value for the money and they sound real damn good. And yes, I wilil have about the same amount of money invested in my Counterpoint SA-5.1 when it finally returns to me from Mike Elliott. I have several components in my system that sold for way more money when they were new than my speakers cost. But those speakers woudn't be there if I didn't think they could hold their own.

 

[mep]

Of course, personal attacks are against the WBF terms of service. I didn't see anyone named in the original post, so no foul.

Edited to add: After consulting with the WBF team, members are under no obligation to list their gear.

Thanks,

Lee

Wow Lee. No one is being attacked here. We also know that members are under no obligation to list their gear. I just merely stated that it is my preference that people do list their gear. When people make comments about how something sounds, it is useful to know what made those sounds.

 

[Steve williams]

Wow Lee. No one is being attacked here. We also know that members are under no obligation to list their gear. I just merely stated that it is my preference that people do list their gear. When people make comments about how something sounds, it is useful to know what made those sounds.

I agree that it is useful but there is no mandate that a person must list his gear here for membership.

 

[mep]

Steve-I think that point is abundently clear. I can wish can't I?

 

[naturephoto1]

I believe that my system is at least close to being able to provide top to bottom sound with my big main speakers. They may not get that last bit of oomph but, I think that they can get at least down to 25 Hz, possibly a little lower than 20 Hz with about 3 dB down. I just finally adjusted the position of my right speaker to match the position of the left one which resulted in the sound opening up a little. That is the soundstage became larger to the left and right and front to back. Since adding the Acoustic room treatments I have also been able to hear more into the soundfield. However, at this point, I believe that my system seems to be set up a little more for the digital end and a little less to producing the analog end. I am finding that the analog seems to be a little more affected by the speaker placement than the digital. Also, with the latest adjustment of the speakers I think that I have lost a little of the bass and will probably need to toe in the speakers maybe 1/6" to 1/8" to better improve the bass output.

But, at this point, I am awaiting the arrival hopefully tomorrow of some new ICs that I will use to determine the position of the speakers particularly with the vinyl playback. I will experiment with these ICs and decide where to place them and if to use them in the system and to move some of the cables elsewhere within the system.

Rich

 

[rbbert]

Was that a dig at me and am I supposed to be offended now? Don't worry, I'm not offended.

Not a dig at all, merely some cross-talk from the "front-end" topic, where we've heard a variety of experiences and opinions about Robert Harley's breakdown of system component ratio. I'm not sure I totally agree with Myles' assertion about higher priced systems (look at Steve's, for instance), but there's certainly some truth to it. I've always liked the Def Tech bipolars, and my current speakers (VMPS RM-40's) are also generally acknowledged to perform significantly above most others in their price range.

 

[mep]

Not a dig at all, merely some cross-talk from the "front-end" topic, where we've heard a variety of experiences and opinions about Robert Harley's breakdown of system component ratio. I'm not sure I totally agree with Myles' assertion about higher priced systems (look at Steve's, for instance), but there's certainly some truth to it. I've always liked the Def Tech bipolars, and my current speakers (VMPS RM-40's) are also generally acknowledged to perform significantly above most others in their price range.

Honestly, I have no idea whether the ratio theory has any validity or not. Rules were made for the guidance of wise men and the observance of fools. A stereo system is a chain of components and the chain is only as strong as its weakest link as we all know. Does it take 40% of your budget to keep your speakers from being the weakest link in your chain? I don't know the answer to that.

 

[muralman1]

Whenever someone says, "I heard that speaker before," I wince. I have heard my brand speakers in other folk's houses, often repeatedly through various system changes. I have also heard my own speakers in my own home through various system changes. Given my familiarity with one type speaker, I can say without any doubt there is no speaker that sounds the same in every system.

I friend of mine has a large stable of Apogee speakers. He doesn't care for the Scintilla because, "Their bass is uncontrolled, and the soundstage is inside out." By the latter, he meant the singer is buried in the band. The truth is, that is just the performance one gets when using big AB amps to power the Scintilla. It isn't the speaker that errs, it is the amp.