If Seas Excel sound sterile what else is as detailed?

**JonMarsh** · 20 January 2005, 19:30 Thursday

Originally posted by fredness

Am I crazy?
Does anything else have the detail of the Excel but just a liitle more realism or warmth?
Any driver suggestions and ideas who I could get to design a crossover? I have brought home nearly every speaker under $1000 in town and just never fell in love.
Thanks,
Fred

Fred, without knowing the rest of the components you're using, this comment may be out of line, BUT, I'm going to throw out a few comments to get you, and perhaps some other folks, thinking...

The W18 and the Millenium Excel are marvelous drivers, and capable of very neutral and revealing performance. That means, when you perceive them as sterile, that may be exactly right, because that may be what the rest of your system is doing...

Now, what I'm getting from your post is that the sum total of your listening experience with these speakers isn't quite what you're looking for. But while I haven't heard the specific speaker you're listening to, I'm quite familiar with what those drivers are capable of, as well as Phil's reputation.

There are other designs using the Millenium Excel plus W18's, such as the Madsound Thor kit, designed by Joseph D'Apollito, which are chameleon like, in that depending on the system they're connected to, listeners report that theyr'e a little thin in the bass, or a little heavy in the bass, or too sterile in the mids and highs, or overly forward, or a little etched, or...

Are you getting where I'm going on this?

Now, I'm not suggesting that you rebuild your system to accomodate a new set of speakers.

What I am suggesting is that you proceed carefully, evaluate what you've got and how it interacts, and maybe try out the other model, but also be open to figuring out if there's somethign else in your system that's a bottleneck.

I don't especially want to get into all the stuff about system interaction and downstream components, etc, on our DIY forum, but all this stuff does count and make a difference. For example, even though I'm working on some relatively "budget" speakers aimed at reproducing 80-85% what designs using the Excel drivers do, but at maybe half the cost or less, I evaluate and voice these more "budget" oriented designs on the same equipment I use for my every day listening and higher end efforts. Because putting more colored equipment in the signal path to voice a less expensive speaker won't make it anymore accurate- and you never know what the "right" compensation is for midrange equipment- they very in their own tonal balance.

Now, another factor is setup and room placement. Too much early side reflections, for example, will result in comb filtering of the frequency response and a somewhat gray, hard sound. Optimum placement is usually at boundary distances which are golden mean ratios, and result in room lift which complements the bottom end roll off of the cabinet.

With the right placement, early arrival reflections are avoided, and the bass performance of the system is smoothly re-inforced in it's lowest range-

with poor placment, uneveness in the bottom end response will result, with dips that can extend to the upper bass or lower midrange.

Last comment is this- let's be realistic about what you can get with a single 7" woofer. I basically agree with Phil in that I prefer the transient response and damping of good sealed systems, but a 7" driver just doesn't have much radiating area to work with. With the proper configuration and alignment, a pretty tuneful ported system is possible, but not necessarily in the same cabinet size as the sealed one. It does take some care in optimizing the box tuning and minmizing the Q, so that fairly clean musical reproduction is possible. This is one reason the smallest systems I've been designing the last few years are usualy 8" two ways, or MTM 7" two ways, to get a little more radiating area for the bottom end. I did one 7" MT last year, but it was for my daughter, who though young, doesn't really listen at head banging levels...

and that was a ported system, tuned to 32 Hz in a 3/4 cu ft box, using a driver that's sort of a Dynaudio woofer clone (3" voice coil in 7" midwoofer).

Just some things to think about...

~Jon

**RavS** · 20 January 2005, 19:35 Thursday

Well, personally I don't find the Excel drivers sterile, I find them very honest, and they don't add or subtract anything. They are not going to give something that is not in the recording. If the recording is flat, harsh, rolled off, thats exactly what you'll hear.

However, as the Millenium is so smooth, I would guess you are finding the midrange W18 Excel to be not to your liking. You may find a Scanspeak or Vifa, or paper based Seas midrange to be much more forgiving. The Scan drivers have high 2nd order distortion, but still this driver sounds fantastic in the midrange.

Try a Scan mid/Seas tweeter based combination, it may be the ticket for you.

**fredness** · 20 January 2005, 22:09 Thursday

My receiver is Pioneer VSX-1014TX 110w x 6 ch MOSFET, Yahama cd changer, Sony DVP-NS755P dvd player. And yes these are not placed correctly. I have two small kids so I put them on top of the entertainement center abot 5 ft high and 1 ft from the wall. I wanted to figure a way to front port them but he says front ports are worse than rear. I don't know if there is only one port size for a given set of parameters or if a balance can be struck. Do I choose great low distortion speakers and add ports (some distortion) or buy less linear speakers that try to live up to the detail of a sealed system. Can you port something just a little? I know these are great drivers with a great crossover. I don't want it to boom. Just sound a little more full without needing a sub every time.

http://www.bamberglab.com/s5mt.shtml

Thanks for your time,
Fred

**GrahamT** · 20 January 2005, 22:23 Thursday

You can't port those, they are just too small to get good clean extension. You would need to build a bigger box and you could do it using unibox.

**cjd** · 20 January 2005, 22:28 Thursday

You can't "partly" port - it's all or nothing.

What's wrong with a "sub"? Though 80Hz is a little higher than I would ideally cross it's not unacceptable. Think of it as a 3-way? Of course, if you find a sub to be bloated or otherwise poor, methinks you need a better sub, or better room placement, or both.

But then, ~40Hz isn't low enough for me, long term, in a music system. Or 30Hz.

Just a little movement can change the character of what you hear dramatically, even with mains (I'm discovering that myself as I experiment with the MTMs I just built).

C

**Dennis H** · 20 January 2005, 22:44 Thursday

Fredness, I'm not sure I understand your question. Were you playing a speaker designed to roll off at 80 Hz so it could mate with a sub, but not using a sub? If so, of course the thing would sound "cold" and "sterile". It isn't making any bass because it isn't designed to. Phil has designed some nice Peerless woofer boxes which act as stands for the Seas boxes. If you only use half the system, you are only going to get half the sound. Nothing to do with the (excellent) Seas drivers, just "user error." Use the whole system if you want the whole sound.

**fredness** · 21 January 2005, 11:28 Friday

Starting to understand

I have heard the Ellis 1801s (F3=40Hz) a few years ago and liked them compared to my Veritas 2.2s. They had sufficient bass for me. The Tyler Acoustics Taylos (F3=44) also had sufficient bass for me. My personal preference would be for a different tweeter or crossover voicing than those speakers. Based on this, I was under the impression that if I liked the sound in the other two applications I don't understand why I can't get just add two small front ports to his box or put his setup in a larger box (sealed?). Phil's measurement criteria for acceptable distortion is part of his system plan to integrate with a sub. He obviously put a lot of planning into this. My acceptable level of distortion is a limited to what I can hear.

This whole upgrade bug started as a replacement for my family room speakers(with no sub) Phase Tech Teatro 4.5 rear ported 5.25" with a soft dome tweeter (F3=58Hz). I wanted a brighter tweeter, not necessarily deeper bass. I do like his implementation of the Millenium tweeter. I would rather have the bass rolloff towards 60 than 80Hz. Voices sound more full and natural to me when coming from the speakers than having to use the sub. At this point I understand that it is my electronics and the rolloff of the small sealed boxes that I am interpreting as analytical and cool. I should have spent more time speaking with Phil about my application before I bought them.

For complete disclosure, my receiver is Pioneer VSX-1014TX 110w x 6 ch MOSFET, Yahama cd changer, Sony DVP-NS755P dvd player. I also have a Peerless 12" XLS sub and have ordered Linkwitz WM1 card to add a little LFE. And my rear ported Veritas 2.2 mains are not placed correctly in my living room. I have two small kids so I put them on top of the entertainement center about 5 ft high and 1 ft from the wall. This is not an ideal environment. I still hope for tight, clear, full sound.

I have seen that the Seas Excel series in lots of high end speakers so I pulled the trigger and asked Phil Bamberg to ship them to me. The last thing I asked Phil was how low do they play. F3 is at 80Hz. Well when I use the crossover on my receiver at 80 there is a perceived fullness to the Veritas that is not there in the 5MTs. Now I understand that is not low enough for my taste. Rather than toss aside a good thing I thought I would ask you kind people about options and alternatives.

I like the 5MT quality and know that the W18EX is capable of playing deeper. I wanted to figure a way to front port them but he says front ports are worse than rear. I don't know if there is only one port size for a given set of parameters or if a balance can be struck between added extrension and the distortion this adds. Do I choose great low distortion speakers and add ports (some distortion) or buy less linear speakers that try to live up to the detail of a sealed system. I know these are great drivers with a great crossover. I don't want it to boom. Just sound a little more full without needing a sub every time.

So all the electronics and my untrained ears have a place in this formula. Maybe the 80Hz rolloff is compounding my impression of a cool analytical sound. Maybe I'll put the Veritas in the family room and keep the 5MTs as mains. Phil has also offered to let me try the 2MTs but it looks like they have the same rolloff.

**JonMarsh** · 21 January 2005, 12:13 Friday

Two points...

OK, Fred, I took a more detailed look at Phil's site, since I have'nt been there in ages (well, being a DIY from scratch kind of guy, I'm not into other folks prebuilt speakers or kits).

Regarding your most recent comments, it's often not understood that if you use a speaker with an HT LFE crossover or any standard electronic crossover at frequency XX, you have to have response extending to between 1/2 and 1 octave beyond that crossover point. Otherwise, the roll off of the speaker adds to that of the crossover network, and the system combination of the two won't sum correctly, unless there's some additional tweaking somewhere (EQ on the mains, EQ on the sub, fiddling/compromising the crossover points, what ever.

For example, on our MTM project here at HT Guide, it's not a very large box (1 cu. ft) with the dual 7" midwoofers, but it is ported, with a well damped tuning for the box at ~ 34 Hz, which gives an anechoic box response down ~ 6 dB at 37 Hz; the in room response with boundary re-inforcement below 50-60 Hz is essentially flat at 40 Hz, and they can be used well with an 80 Hz crossover, or run full range. Different trade-offs, I guess. Unlike most of my speakers, these were designed specifically for HT and those using typical HT surround setups- again, not what I usually use (I'm more a two channel music guy for the most part)

With the design of the BESL having a box Fb of 80 Hz, they'll have a 2nd order roll off there by them selves. If the LFE output of your receiver is 80 Hz 4th order, then the right transfer function to have on the "mains" would be a 2nd order high pass, not fourth order. Is your receiver programmable in the HF crossover function? If so, you may be able to "fix" things by adjusting the crossover parameters. If not, you may actually get better sound setting the mains to run closer to full range; i.e., if you can, at least move the crossover point down a bit, so that you don't effectively have a six order acoustic transfer function on the high pass at 80 Hz.

BTW, voices should never be coming from a sub- if your other satelites need that high a crossover, that is a problem.

I understand what it's like to have to use setup and positioning that's less than ideal because of having the kids around- fortunately, my daugher is a bit older now (20!), and I'm past those days.

Front porting speakers is not a good idea- there are resonances which occur in the port becuase of it's physical shape which appear in the midrange- typically in the area from 400 to 600 or 700 Hz which will interact with the midwoofers and color the sound. None of my full range speaker designs are front ported anymore.

Another problem is that for a given set of drivers, the right enclosure volume for a sealed Fb of 80 Hz, is most likely the WRONG enclousre size for a reasonable ported alignment. The bookshelfs we do with 1 cu. ft for dual 7" midwoofers is sub optimum for bass extension, but a reasonable compromise at 1 cu. ft. The Fb if sealed is about 65 Hz, but the F3 is closer to 100 Hz, becuase the Q is much lower- transeient response would be close to critically damped, where as I'm sure for a seealed box alignment Phil is going for a higher Q- the T/S parameters of the W18's are more suited to ported enclosures if you want some bass extension, as the Q is otherwise too low.

Oddly, the linkes to the Peerless woofer boxes which Dennis refers to aren't currently working on the BESL site. It does seem to me that they should be sold as an integrated system- as I mention above, if the box has a designed Fb of -3 dB at 80 Hz, it won't work correctly with an HT 80 Hz crossover UNLESS you can modify the setup parameters for the crossover in the reciever.

I'm getting the impression from your comments that if you could get the mid bass to upper end balance "right" compared to your original speakers, you'll be reasonably happy? As I mentioned earlier, see if you can modify the crossover parameters for the high pass in your reciever. I know that many HT Pre-pro prcessors will support functionality like that (my Sony EDP9ES does), but receivers vary greatly in the supported functionality.

The last point - I hope you can work with these speakers from Phil and get them working satisfactorily in your current system by adjusting your crossover parameters. They should be real gems in their intended operating range- and capable of true "high end" peformance in that range. If you have a friend with a higher end setup with good two channel electronics, see if you can give them a listen in his system. It may change your perspective on their potential a little.

I do have a Sony HT receiver and DVD player which I throw projects in development on to see how they sound on more "Mid Fi" gear, because you have to be a little careful in voicing a speaker so that it isn't too analytical or revealing for the target audience and equipment. I'm certainly doing that with these current HT oriented projects. But all my normal listening and development is done with dedicated two channel gear- and it does sound better all across the spectrum than the HT reciever and DVD player, though my audio setup is not what I'd call bleeding edge stuff- Aragon amps, Ayre amps and preamps, Cardas and Ayre cables, Sony SACD, and Benchmark DAC1. Still, each of these components makes a difference.

So, while I can see from your viewpoint that you would like a speaker which is accurate but doesn't sound sterile or cold in your system, without actually hearing your system, I keep coming back to wondering if there's a basic mismatch in synergy between the BESL speakers and your current electronics- in addition to the midbass crossover problem. I'm wondering about this too, after reading some of the discussion over at Madisound.

Key components for audio quality in my own system are these components:

Preamp - an Ayre K5x, very musical and detailed without being at all harsh or sterile (it's a non feedback solid state class A design with a proprietary electornic volume control)

Power amps are either conventional Aragons (have 8008 X3 BB, 8008ST, and Palladium monoblocks) or the non loop feedback Ayre V5x.

You shouldn't underestimate the impact of electronics and cables in the complete chain, as well as your digital source.

I hope you can use these suggestions for getting your BESL's working better in your current system, becasue they should be a good investment if you're inclined to upgrade your system later.

~Jon

**Dennis H** · 21 January 2005, 13:42 Friday

If the LFE output of your receiver is 80 Hz 4th order, then the right transfer function to have on the "mains" would be a 2nd order high pass, not fourth order.

Thanks to THX (grrrr), that's how almost all of them work these days -- LR4 on the lowpass and B2 on the highpass. They all have 80 Hz filters per THX and some/many will have other freqs to choose from as well. To get the easiest good blend with most of the receivers and prepros out there, you need a sealed Q=.7 main and a sub with no built-in lowpass filter. Otherwise, you've got some fiddling to do.

Of course, if you go with Phil's whole system, it has two small subs that act as speaker stands and he provides active crossovers so you would just set your receiver to mains=large to bypass the receiver's crossover.

**JonMarsh** · 21 January 2005, 14:13 Friday

Hey Dennis,

Any idea why the links to the XLS woofer module seem to be de-activiated? Text is there, but no hyperlink. I notice he seems to be moving to using a Behringer crossover instead of his analog one (which looks a lot like a Marchand). He mentions asymetrical slope crossover, so I'm guessing it's a 4th and 2nd order combo, tuned to his own speakers?

It seems to me like going with the full integrated setup would be the wise thing to do.

**Dennis H** · 21 January 2005, 14:18 Friday

Yeah, I just noticed that he's changed his page with no links to the subs. Maybe he's working on a new model? If Fred has a sub now, even if it's not a very good one, just for audition purposes, he should be running the mains as small 80 Hz. That's what they're designed for. It's silly to blame the Seas drivers.

**goskers** · 21 January 2005, 14:35 Friday

I don't mean to throw my .02 in here but here you go. I become very frustrated with most of my friends when they come to listen to my latest 2 channel hifi gear because their perception differs greatly from my own. I find the typical person that likes stereo gear is coming from BB and CC. The one factor that is overkilled the most is bass and how loud does this thing play. I am not trying to imply that fredness is this person but I have run into this more than once.

With that said, set your receiver to run full range, find your best recordings and give Phil's speakers a real listen. Once you become truly familiar with the 5mt sound hook your veritas2.2's back up. What are the differences between the two full range? Does your old setup seem to be lacking some detail? Do the veritas over/under emphasize any areas?

I have not owned any of Phil's work but have owned 1801's and Orion's. My initial impression of good, accurate speakers was a little sterile but once I became familiar with the sound I realized that accuracy was a more correct title.

goskers

**fredness** · 22 January 2005, 01:12 Saturday

To clarify...I always run my speakers on the large setting. I belive that means there is no frequency cutoff. I tried the 80 Hz setting to understand what that sounded like with both of these speakers. Of course they sound better without any limitations. I am not familiar with different orders (2nd-4th, etc) of crossovers.

Phil explained that he has spent a lot of time developing his latest models. Subs will be available soon. Don't hesitate to ask now. All speakers are developed with the ability to be used together, they have similar signatures.

Accurate is the word. They do have a detailed sound that I have been searching for. That is how I chose the Veritas. It makes me think I should plug the port on the Veritas to maintain its detail (since it is also 1 ft from the wall). I am not compaining just asking for opinions. I am an electronics buyer at work and consider the cost benefit ratio. Everyone is correct in the fact that with a sub they really shine. I didn't buy them with that in mind but I can change my plan. The wife likes them so much that I can keep them. I was certain that she would make me sell the Veritas if I kept the BESL 5MT. She now sees they work well together, in seperate rooms.

I bought Triangle Titus ES speakers which sounded great in the store but dull here. Do you suppose it helps that the store has a $200 McIntosh amp and $1500 cd player? Of course. I didn't plug in the BESLs there but I might when I return the Triangles tomorrow. That should be an eye opener. Phil has offered to let me demo the 2MT thinking it might mate with my system better. Inside I feel like it would be a step down but I need to get over that feeling. I doubt I'll ever get seperates. I bought my Pioneer after reading how popular it was on avsforum.com. I had an older NAD but this sounded clearer (less warm, aha!) than the NAD. I also like the features.

The Veritas sound better than anything else I brought home 3 years ago. By comparison the BESLs are cleaner but sound thinner in some way. The notes play accurately but it doesn't exactly sound musical to me. Of course my eqpt is a large part of that. As you say maybe I just need to get used to it. I can run both speakers at the same time but in different rooms. The Veritas sounds full. Someone on AudioAsylum pointed out a peak around 180Hz. Not a flat fre response at all now that I look at it. Maybe that is why the 5MT sounds a little thin by comparison.

http://www.audio-ideas.com/reviews/loudspeakers/energyv2-2.html

To summarize, the BESL 5MT is great with a sub. 2MT is less expensive but also sealed and may be more forgiving with some equipment. There are reviews for both on http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/rev...oryID=Speakers

The suggestions I received for alternatives that may work w/out a sub are North Creek Music (Okara or Spirit) and Selah Audio (w/ a Vifa which may sound between the Seas Excel W18EX and the Scan Speak 8545). In the DIY realm I am curious to mate a Adire Extremis 6.8 with a Morel Supreme 110. I can't leave well enough alone.
-Fred

**awm** · 22 January 2005, 01:16 Saturday

Fredness, you mention having heard the 1801 some years ago but that you'd have preferred a different tweet and/or voicing. I was curious -- did you hear the 1801a (the first version) or the 1801b's? There is a significant difference between the two.

Andy

**Dennis H** · 22 January 2005, 01:30 Saturday

To clarify...I always run my speakers on the large setting.

Sorry Fred, but you need to get over that notion. The speakers you bought are designed to be "small" speakers with an 80 Hz crossover. There is no way they are going to sound good set to "large." Get used to the idea that they need a sub.

You have a receiver with an 80 Hz crossover. Use it, with a sub. Run the Pioneer auto setup thingie to set levels and distances and then manually set the crossover to 80 Hz (the Pioneer likes to set the speakers to large if they make any bass at all.) Then tell us how it sounds. I'll bet it sounds great.

**Al Garay** · 22 January 2005, 18:53 Saturday

If the McIntosh amp cost is not a typo, can you contact me with the details?

I agree with those who said electronics is your main problem. And your source front-end is the biggest problem of all. Borrow a new NAD top-of-line CD or DVD player and notice the difference. While you're at it, borrow NAD or Rotel receiver or separates... better still.

Al

**sfdoddsy** · 25 January 2005, 12:16 Tuesday

I've noticed that you mention throughout your posts how much you like your Veritas speakers. So the obvious question has to be why do you want to change. What do you feel you are missing out on.

Unlike some of my esteemed co-advisors here, I'm not as hung up on the front end and amps, but I am hung up on placement and room acoustics.

I don't think positioning any speaker five feet high and on top of an entertainment one foot away from a wall is going to do it any justice. So before buying or making new speakers, try to move your current ones.

If you can't, then you might want to look at speakers designed to sound good when placed like yours are. Possibly wall mounts like some of the Thiels. Or you may be a candidate for digital room correction.

But any speaker designed to be listened to a normal listening height (tweeter at ear level) as most are is going to sound odd when said tweeter is (I assume) six feet up. Do the speakers sound better when you stand up than they do when you are sitting?

Cheers

Steve

**fredness** · 26 January 2005, 15:57 Wednesday

Follow up

I think I'm next on the 2MT demo list so we shall see if that is a better match for my system. The CA18 mid/bass driver seems to be well liked. I'll post my observations here.

I still like the Veritas but I need to find a way to set them at a reasonable height while making them kid proof. The Veritas have a hump in the frequency response around 130Hz which compounds my impression that the Excels sound analytical when I A/B them. I did not realize that before.

Yes the McIntosh price was a typo. $2000 is correct I believe.
I was told by Phil that setting the speakers on large is ok. Using the receiver to roll off frequencies creates a sharper roll off (4th order?). This quickly goes beyond my eductaion. I'll try to listen for a difference.
-Fred

**fredness** · 17 May 2005, 14:34 Tuesday

3 month follow up

I have been living with the BESL 5MT speakers for a few months now and I am very satisfied. They do sound much better than any other speaker I auditioned under $1200. They have the detail that I love. Everyone is correct in the fact that with a sub they really shine. My initial impression was that they sounded cool but once I became familiar with the sound I realized that accurate was a more correct title.

My first impressions were done while comparing the 5MT to the Energy Veritas 2.2. The Veritas sounded better than anything else I brought home 3 years ago. Someone on AudioAsylum pointed out a peak around 180Hz. Not a flat frequency response at all now that I look at it. Maybe that is why the 5MT sounds a little thin by comparison because the Veritas is not as accurate as I once thought. In an A/B comparison the extra bass in the Veritas made it seem the 5MT was thinner than reality.

I recently upgraded my Sound King speaker cables to Alpha-Core Goertz MI-2 (diy using their Laminax product for approx $1/ft). I also upgraded my Radio Shack interconnect cables to Belden 1694A for digital and 89259 for analog. Now I hear greater range in the speakers. Each system is only as good as its weakest link.

To summarize, the BESL 5MT is detailed and great with a sub. The 5MT did benefit from a 1 db eq boost at 125 and 250 Hz using my Pioneer VSX-1014TX. That added the warmth/full sound that I felt was lacking (either in my amp or the speakers). This helped voices, piano and guitars sound a little more natural to my ears, in my system.

The 2MT has that full sound, also needs a sub, and may be more forgiving with some low/mid-fi equipment. A great speaker for the money. Side by side the 5MT has a little more air, sense of space. I am not very good at putting these things into words.

Audio Ideas review of Energy Veritas 2.2
Phil Bamberg's BESL 5MT speakers

**AJINFLA** · 17 May 2005, 21:46 Tuesday

"Cold" vs "Warm"

I see these terms often used to describe "sound". Temperature being used to describe sound. :huh: . Now I definately understand "hot" describing a little too much. "Hot" treble for example. Whereas this may be a generalization not applicable to all scenarios, I often find that when "cold" or "sterile" is used, it is often a description for lack of distortion (not always of course and mostly unbeknownst to the describer). "Warm" I associate with added distortion, whether it be a tube amplifier or a speaker (where it could also be a small hump in the bass region). Which brings me to the fredness's post. I believe what he may well have been describing is the low distortion of the excel/millennium combo. That will often be the first impression when your previous speakers or listening impressions were that of speakers with inherently higher distortion. Especially within the drive units themselves (I can't say for sure of course). Upon further listening (long term) is when the greater accuracy of the system will be revealed. One more layer of distortion within the chain from recording to speaker removed. Not eliminated of course. It will still be easy to tell the difference between recorded and live sound. Just slightly less so.
Now as far as the differences in component sound, I'm going to have to agree with Steve and disagree with Jon (who I have much respect for). The reason is simple. I have yet to see one single scientifically controlled listening test where ANYONE has been able to (statistically) reliably tell the difference between a receiver like Freds Pioneer and ANY solid state amp operated at levels below clipping. Someone saying "it sound better" in their living room or "in my experience" doesn't cut it for me. ABX test or similar please.
No disrespect intended. Just my HO. The claims of wires/Cd players/amps sound differences (especially words like "huge") keep getting disproven, over and over again. But I have an open mind. So I'd like to see that test results that prove me wrong. Because most of them fancy amps look really cool :T . Plus glow in the dark wires would probably impress some chicks :W . I'm a rather simple kinda guy :B .

Cheers

AJ

If Seas Excel sound sterile what else is as detailed?

If Seas Excel sound sterile what else is as detailed?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment