System upgrade

**David Meek** · 05 June 2003, 09:36 Thursday

Hi Marlon, welcome to The Guide.

The B&Ws will definitely tame those unruly highs from the M&K THXs. They are a nicely balanced, warm (but with good detail) speaker. Good friends of our have them (the 604s, matching CC and monitors for surrounds) and I was able to hear them in the showroom when they auditioned them and I've heard theirs in their home. A nice choice.

The Maggies require lots of room around them to perform at their best. I've seen anywhere from 3 to 6 feet of spacing mentioned, and they require better than average amplification to perform well. Set up correctly and mated to the right components, they ARE impressive. Clarity, speed and neutrality.

Parasound makes good-to-VERY-good amplification and pre/pros. The 2205 5-channel amp is an HT staple. Their new Halo line is making serious noise in the high-end arena - with fairly high-end pricing, though.

I can't help with the other components, but there are LOTS of Rotel afficianados around here. Good luck, and let us know what you wind up getting!

David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

**John Holmes** · 06 June 2003, 10:15 Friday

Yes, Welcome to the guide Marlon!

David has already given you some good advice. I won't get into the equipment part since you seem to have done your homewaork for that.

I am curious though. You stated that you know that 60% of your problem is the room. That is pretty major. I have no idea how you have setup speakers in relationship to the room/listening positon. Nor do we know if you have attempted to address any of the rooms issues. Like using drapes, pillows, foam, tapestry, etcetera. IMO, with this left un-addressed, I a liitle concerned at any success rate of new equipment.

BTW, I do think those are some great choices for new equipment! :B

"I came here, to chew bubble gum and kickass. And I'm all out of bubble gum!!!" My DVD's

**Two Feathers** · 09 June 2003, 07:21 Monday

Agreed.

My reason for blaming room acoustics for brightness was because I had floorboards, 2 walls and a large glass sliding door without any soft fabric in sight, except for a small couch... even the TV stand was a Bell'Oggetti metal and glass stand - so the room was extremely 'live'.

This is now fixed. The room is 4 x 4m (12 x 12ft) and I've covered most of this with a 2 inch thick shag pile rug (wool weave), I've also draped a curtain across the glass sliding door which spans an entire wall (9ft). A thin, very transparent curtain weave will be placed behind the listening position in the archway that leads to the main meals room (open plan design). I think all this should suffice. If further work is required, I'll begin pinpointing exact reflectioin zones and bass traps. However I think I'll wait until I've heard the system in my room first before adding any further accoustical enhancements. I don't want to go from one extreme to the other...

Any criticisms about my intended system, don't hesitate in speaking up.
No such thing as too much information.

Cheers.

****If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly****

**David Meek** · 09 June 2003, 08:02 Monday

Marlon, one thing I'd recommend strongly, is to NOT go with the Maggies in a 12' x 12' room. They are excellent speakers, but to sound their best, they need more real estate. I understand about the room size - mine is 13'-3" x 11'-3".

David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

**Burke Strickland** · 09 June 2003, 09:56 Monday

If the 12 foot x 12 foot room is going to be mostly empty, the Maggies might work just fine, especially since you've already dampened the room's inherent brightness a bit, making it "apparently larger" acoustically, rather than being a constricted "echo chamber". (If you went to the other extreme of making the room almost totally "dead" acoustically, that would pretty much kill the effectiveness of the Maggies' sound reflected off the walls from the back of the panels.)

But, as David accurately points out, the Maggies require a lot of room around them to sound their best. Actually, so do many of the more traditional "box" speakers, but people are so used to a "constricted" sound from box speakers, that too often they don't really pay much attention to proper placement. (With the Maggies, having once heard them when set up properly, you would probably ONLY be satisfied with them set up properly.) Pushed up too close against a wall, (as in a crowded room where placement cannot be "played with"), the 1.6s won't "sing" like they are supposed to.

In my 16 feet by 18 feet room, my Magnepan 3.6s are five feet from the front wall and the speaker centers are about four feet from the side walls. With 90 inches between the speaker centers, that is also the distance from each speaker center to my listening "sweet spot. The Maggies are the speakers that come the closest to transporting me to the space where the musicians are performing -- I'd knock down a wall to "make room" for them before I'd accept a different set of speakers for my music listening and movie watching. :>)

In a 12 foot by 12 foot room, having the MG 1.6s three feet from the front wall leaves nine feet in the room from the speakers to the back wall. With the 1.6s about three feet from the side wall, that puts them about six feet apart, which would put you a bit more than three feet from the back wall to have an equilateral triangle from the speaker centers to the listening "sweet spot" -- still plenty of "space" for surrounds. You could be closer to the back wall and still have the arrangement work. You would have to determine whether that would work for you or not, given the other furniture and accessories that must also fit into the room.

If you have an accomodating dealer who will let you try them at home with full return privileges, the best thing to do, once you get hooked on their magically realistic sound from a demo, :>) is to set them up in your space and see how they sound to you there. If you can arrange things in the room to allow them to have about three feet from the front and side walls with no major obstructions in between, you might still find them prefereable to box speakers in that setting.

Good luck --

Burke

**Two Feathers** · 10 June 2003, 08:17 Tuesday

Wow, you guys really are informative.

Actually, while I think my room may just be a little too small for the Magnepans, considering I want seating for 3 people, I think I may have the opportunity to compare them with the B&Ws as the one dealer here stocks both.

Anyone heard of RL-2 Loudspeakers? If so, how do they compare with the B&W 600 series?

****If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly****

**Two Feathers** · 10 June 2003, 08:35 Tuesday

....actually in expanding from my last post, does anyone know much about Decware products? Are they really as good as Steve Deckert preaches?

He advises that RL-2 loudspeakers and SE34-I amplifer should be my starting point for a new system, with HT coming later.

Would his gear really sound better for 2 channel than my proposed Rotel & B&W/ Magnepan line up?

****If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly****

**David Meek** · 10 June 2003, 09:30 Tuesday

Hmmm, sorry but I'm not familiar with that brand. :?

David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

**Digital Bob** · 11 June 2003, 16:01 Wednesday

Hi Two Feathers,

Since you came for opinions, far be it from to disappoint.

I make it a point to try and never post anything negative about products for a host of reasons. So please know that I do not intend this as a "knock" against the B&Ws you are considering. Not at all. However the particular combination of needs/parameters you mentioned compels me to pipe in here with some info that you might find useful.

You mention that you were unhappy with the imaging, phasing and tonal qualities of the old system. Further you said it sounded bright and that your room acoustics were pretty bad. Given that, I don't think the B&Ws would be the speakers I would reccommend for you.

Now before anyone gets mad, please hear me out. The B&Ws are really nice speakers and they do a lot of things well. And in many situations they are very warm and pleasing while retaining great detail. A very nice choice for many people. However...

That warmth and liquid sounding highs come at a price in the B&W design. While they are magical on axis, they have some very very ragged response characteristics off axis. In fact more so than many speakers cost far less money. Now if you can site them very carefully and/or treat the room then this problem goes away and you are left with a simply terrific on-axis sound. In that scenario they are the remarkable speakers you have heard about.

But if your acoustics are bad, room is small, and you disliked the imaging and bright sound of your last speakers... I think that particular combo is bad news for the B&Ws. I would suggest treatinmg your room, making it bigger so you can site them properly to tame the harsh reflections you will get or consider a different speaker.

Again, it is only because of your particular situatuion and your prior experience with bright/harsh sound (due in large part to that situation) that I am saying this. Please no flames from the legions of (appropriately) loyal B&W fans.

Hope this helps,

dB

**Robbie** · 12 June 2003, 03:06 Thursday

Bob,

I couldn't agree with you more. Some and I repeat some B&W speakers are ear bleeders for sure (at least to my ears).

I would suggest trying to get the store to loan (or at least have a generous return policy) you the speakers to try out 'in room' first. This would be for any speakers.

Robbie

**Two Feathers** · 12 June 2003, 08:32 Thursday

I take your points on board. What else would I consider then, if not the B&W 603/4 s3? What will provide the step up from M&K750s? I'd rather go to full frequency floorstanders than stay with satellite bookshelves.

I have however, changed the room accoustics significantly already... not to try and justify the B&Ws... quite frankly I would buy wine barrels if they sounded great... but I have thrown a large, thick rug down and hung some drapes... already I've noticed a difference.

While ultimately I know I have to 'listen' to various systems to decide what sounds best... with the ideal scenario is taking some home for trial (I think I can do this with some dealers) I still have to narrow the options down. There are SO many brands out there.. and salespeople are no help...

What speaker has a large sweet spot/ is good off-axis?

****If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly****

**Digital Bob** · 12 June 2003, 10:49 Thursday

[What speaker has a large sweet spot/ is good off-axis? ]

UhOh! You have just pushed the "ON" button for me when it comes to loudspeakers. :LOL:

IMHO these are some essential questions that people should ask when choosing speakers for their home. And without going into a total froth and boring everyone here, I will just say that it's these same qualities that most people find the most important at the end of the day. Some other time I can post a summary of the most comprehensive double-blind listening test in history that spanned 8 years and 2000 listeners to illustrate why this thesis turns out to be true.

But for now you want a loudspeaker reccomendation. And for those that know me I'm sure you know where I'm headed...

... Mirage loudspeakers from API. I am an unashamed zealot of Ian Paisley and his protege Andrew Welker. Ian was elected by his peers to serve as president of the Athena Project (the industry's representation at that reknowned 8 year listening test) and his personal genius combined with the revelations and confirmations led him to create speakers that are better off axis than most others in the world, at any price. Andrew learned at the knee of Ian and has gone beyond Ian's famous designs even with the newest line of Omnipolar speakers from Mirage.

They are INCREDIBLY smooth sounding with one of the best metal dome tweeters I have ever heard. Yes metal. Mmm hmm, I said metal as in a hybrid Titanium dome with cloth surround that API builds from scratch. One listen and you will immediately rethink everything you ever heard about metal domes not sounding warm or smooth. In fact, one of the few criticisms these speakers get is that for some they are TOO mellow and laid back for some tastes.

As for sweet spot... the omnipolar radiation design gives the largest sweet spot of any current speaker design. Period. End of discussion.

And so I can tie this back to the other thing you asked about, the reason that Mirage's omnipolar design works with just just two tweets and mids is all about off-axis response. See the problem of room acoustics has and continues to be the off axis sounds coming from our loudspeakers. There are really only 3 ways to deal with this dilemna...

1) Use narrow dispersion designs that limit room interaction so you don't hear the ragged off-axis sounds reflected back to you.

2) Treat the room so you don't hear the ragged off-axis sounds reflected back to you.

3) Make the off axis response as accurate as the on-axis and EMBRACE room interaction.

#3 is obviously what Mirage (and for that matter live music) and a few other forward thinking speaker desgins are doing.

I have ranted long enough. If you want to talk more about this then just push my button again :LOL: and we can talk about some of the science behind Ian's decisions and how other designers are starting to see the light and add ambience/rearfiring/bipolar aspects to their designs.

Thanks and I hope this helps,

dB

**Digital Bob** · 12 June 2003, 11:09 Thursday

Rereading your post and mine I realize I might not have given you as many choices as you were looking for. So here are two more besides Mirage that I think might work well for you...

Revel Loudspeakers: very smooth off axis. Ambience/rear tweeter to create larget sweet spot and deeper sound stage. And interestingly the two designers were associated with Ian Paisely and/or the listening study itself I refferred to above and they came out with very similar opinions.

Sonus Faber: very smooth on and off axis. No ambience drivers or omni radiation, but remarkably big soundstage even so because of great dispersion and off axis response. Smaller sweet spot than Mirage but ultra smooth sounding.

Good luck and hopefully you can audition some of these,

dB

**John Holmes** · 12 June 2003, 11:18 Thursday

Two Feathers,

I know that you are set on upgrading. But until you do, you might find this thread to be helpful: http: http://www.htguide.com/CFBoards/inde...artRow=1&CFB=1

There's an e-mail that I received from one of M&K's engineers (near the middle or so of the thread) that may help you get over the hump.

What speaker has a large sweet spot/ is good off-axis?

I think that a good number of speakers meet this challenge. It just depends on if you are going to follow through with good/proper setup for them. I don't believe the Maggies are that great off axis by design but, you may want to check with Burke, Andrew or Jon Marsh about that. They know Maggies! Infinity made a speaker (RS 2000.5 a floor stander) a few yrs back. I purchased four of them because, not only did/do they sound pretty darn good for the money, but they give a large sweet spot and decent off axis response. However, they have there limitations too. They only go down to 38hz, a port that fires directly to the floor, well you get my point I think. There are other things as well that help to make a speaker fit into one's needs.

One thing you can count on is, no two people hear exactly the same. You will find just as many lovers as you do haters for a given brand or model. You can be the only one that knows how good one is vs. another that fits your specific need and sound.

Later,

"I came here, to chew bubble gum and kickass. And I'm all out of bubble gum!!!" My DVD's

**David Meek** · 12 June 2003, 12:43 Thursday

Not trying to hi-jack the thread, but what happens when you are off-axis to the imaging? Doesn't the offset in arrival time of the signal from the close speaker vs. the signal from the far speaker mess substantially with the presentation irregardless? I don't have a LARGE off axis listining area, so haven't really delved into it.

David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

**Digital Bob** · 12 June 2003, 15:42 Thursday

David,

You know hijacking buys you federal time, right?

As for your question... Yes the imaging does change due to arrival times. And THAT is one of the key benefits of speaker with coherent, flat off axis response. Let me explain as it was taught to me...

If we were to go to a live concet and sit Orchestra section, 7th row center we would get a great "image" of the performers right? Well what if our scalper could only get us tickets off to one side instead? Would we suddenly think the orchestra was not in the middle of the stage? Nope, not for a second. Now the sound will be slightly different I grant you, but we will still get the sense of where they are. Why?

Well because in live music we receive both direct and reflected sounds. In fact most detailed analysis shows that in a typical seating position for the live event about 70% of what we hear is reflected sound (first, second, third or more reflections combined) and only about 30% is direct. Think about it like this... when that violin string vibrates as the bow is drawn across it where do the sound waves go? Just at us or everywhere? Exactly, in all directions.

Now for years the conventional wisdom for building home loudspeakers was go for ruler flat response on-axis (thus capturing the 30%) and to ignore or even try to minimize the off-axis sounds. Now there were several reasons for this but most of them centered around the fact that it is MUCH harder to get a loudspeaker to behave well on AND off axis. So in our homes we would hear the peaky, harsh off-axis sounds reflected to us and our brains would cry 'foul'. It sounded bad or at least not real.

So this entire culture of "holographic" imaging grew up because designs tried to limit dispersion and/or urged siting and treatment options that tamed *cough* the reflections. In reality we get an image that is "realler than real". Think about it. At the last concert you went to could you close your eyes and point clearly at the 5th violinist in the second row just by sound alone? Nope, that's exactly the point. Limiting the off-axis sounds creates an artificial form of imaging that I grant is quite exciting and surreal, but it is artificial none the less.

Speaker designers brave enough to toss out what they were taught in engineering school sometimes stumble upon the truth on their own. Such was the case of Ian Paisely. He had a goal to build the perfect loudspeaker like so many before and since have. He used the methods and rationale of the day and created what the 'experts' said was the holy grail; a speaker that went from 30-22khz at +/- ONE QUARTER of a dB. That's right, plus or minus 1/4 dB. And guess what? It sucked. He hated the sound of it and so did most people he played it for. Why?

Because as amazing as it was on-axis, when he measured the off-axis response he saw HUGE anamolies. Understand that when most conventional designs are played back in a living room the direct to reflected ratio is turned nearly on its head! Typically in that scenario we hear about 60% direct sound and about 40% reflected. And it's by design because designers of the day were/are trying to limit dispersion or treat rooms because their designs suffered the same nasty off-axis issues and our ear/brain would pick up these anamolies and tell us the music was "wrong".

We can discuss the science of how the braind blends primary and secondary sounds that are harmonically related but delayed in time, but suffice to say that millions of years of running from saber tooth tigers have taught us to "hear" space and use reflected sound to judge distance, and location. And when conventional speaker designs limit dispersion and/or disperse off-axis sounds that are related to but changed from the on-axis we hear it... like a sore thumb we hear it.

And designers are beginning to learn this thanks to some pioneers like Ian and Floyd Toole and many others that have shown this through anecdotal as well as solid clinical trials. For the "prove it" types among us I will be glad to illuminate some startling results from the NRC listening tests that were the most comprehensive scientific study of listening preferences ever undertaken in history. And Ian and Floyd were there at the heart of them, one from the industry side (Ian) and one from the labratory side (Floyd). They both went on to produce speakers that stress coherency on and off-axis and have broad uniform dispersion. Even to the point of mounting one or more drivers facing away from the listener to replace some of the missing information that is lost in conventional designs.

So the short answer to your question, :LOL: Yes if you move out of the sweet spot it does affect imaging, but far far far far less than if you were to do the same thing with conventional designs that rely almost exclusively on direct sound to try and emulate the musical event.

BTW You have to be careful, I can rant on this topic forever.

Hope someone finds this useful,

dB

**David Meek** · 12 June 2003, 17:57 Thursday

Originally posted by DBob

You know hijacking buys you federal time, right?

Hey, if I'm going to buy something, I only want the best!

Seriously though, thanks for the lucid and enjoyable rant, uh I mean post! You even managed to answer my next question which was "Why would an omni-polar design work better off-axis?"

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming. . . . Marlon, you there?

David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

**Two Feathers** · 14 June 2003, 07:53 Saturday

zzzzzzz....only joking :LOL: ... actually, I think I understand most of it. So, conventional speakers are mostly "point-source" speakers, right? Wouldn't this then mean that really all point-source speakers perform poorly off-axis? How can one sound better than another... like the Mirages or Revels over the B&Ws?

Very briefly researching "omni-polar" I stumbled across the following info:

"An Omni-polar speaker consists of a siamese tractrix (or two "pseudo-spheres") with a horn speaker at the top and bottom. The horn-speakers emit sound toward each other. As the sound approaches the center of the siamese tractrix pair, it is gradually bent away from the axis until it is perpendicular to the axis. This redirected sound creates a disc dispersion pattern that radiates 360 degrees radially. This type of pattern is great unless your ears are changing in distance from the ground level, i.e., if you are sitting and standing. The size of such siamese tractrices are around 6 feet tall and would be ideally quite heavy. One advantage is that midrange-tweeter horns can be used if the tractrix is large enough. This type of speaker solves only the horizontal movement problem and does not address the vertical problem." (http://www.ece.villanova.edu/ion/p11.html)

Reflecting on this, I'm assuming the vertical problem isn't as important as the horizontal one, right? - because people generally don't change their listening position height in a room as frequently as they are changing their horizontal listening position (which can even be a simple turn of one's head so that one ear is closer to a particular speaker).

Interstingly enough, my current M&K 750s have the tweeters pointing slightly away from the listening position (angled about 20 degree off-axis). This, I believe, is done to increase dispersion and enable this particular point source speaker to perform better off-axis than convetional speakers. Any M&K experts can correct me here if wrong...

Nevertheless, better off-axis performance doesn't replace better on-axis sound. It's intersting to note, a response from M&K on my "brightness query" highlighted their intention to have the M&Ks sound a little brighter intentionally (for an audience they were marketed towards). Oopps... getting off the topic....

Decware's RL-2 loudspeakers are suppose to be a hybrid of the two:
http://decware.com/radials/radials.htm

What about placement of omni -polar speakers? Are they placed at the conventional distances from each other and the desired listening positions?
What about HT setups? How does a centre speaker fit in? Is that omni-polar as well?...... ohh boy... so many questions.... head hurting now... :?

Thanks for all this guys... I'm a sponge when it comes to info...

****If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly****

**Digital Bob** · 16 June 2003, 09:10 Monday

Hi Two Feathers,

Sorry about the long posts. I tend to get fired up about Mirage and omnipolar radiations. As to a short (ha!) answer to your questions....

1) That quote you found about omnipolar concerns ONE implimentation of the technology. And by far not the best one. That one uses horns which by their very nature limit dispersion. But then they mount and fire them uniquely to try and overcome this. So the "disc" of sound is the result. TRUE omnipolar radiation is not a disc at all but a sphere. Therefore there is no issue whatsoever with listener height. Again, think about the pattern that a live violin string radiates sound and you get what true omnipolar is all about. (Note: no horns on Mirage, they use conventional super high quality drivers)

2) Placement... Here is the single BIGGEST MYTH about omnipoles. Because they are so uniform in their off axis response, they are far LESS sensitive to placement issues than conventional designs. The things many of us do to site speakers so carefully to minimize or tame primary reflections is simply not an issue with omnipoles. They are designed to interact with the room and so are not fussy at all. Now to sound their best, they do like to be a bit away from the back and side walls (like ALL speakers) and you still want to have them about 7 feet or so apart in a typical room. But once again, they are less fussy than most speakers and things like toe-in and rake are barely noticable by even the golden ears because of the omni radiation. In short, 99% of the time you are more likely to get closer to the particular loudspeaker's optimum sonic capabilities with omnipole than you are with a conventional radiation in any given living room. The one exception is if you "encase" (as in built-in) the omnipole to completely block the back wave.

3) Center channel... In fact there are omnipolar center channels as well!!! And if you mount your center channel on top of or in front of your sceen with some room around it, you will want tocheck them out; especially if you have omnipolar mains. If your particular set-up has the center channel encased in an entertainment system (cabinet/bookshelf) with little or no room for the back wave to develop or get out to the the listener, then look for a conventional (but wide dispersion) center channel loudspeaker design. Mirage makes both kinds to satisfy both situations.

4) How do you make a speaker better off axis... Hmm, if I knew that I would have my own speaker company! :LOL: But seriously, it's not rocket science, or so I'm told. Certain crossovers and cabinet designs cause loudspeakers to exhibit more or less coherence far off axis. There are some physical things like using smaller drivers and keeping them crossed over lower so they don't become "beamy" near the top of their frequency range. And finally, cone break-up and other factors in the drivers themselves dictate how ragged or smooth a speaker's off axis response will be. There is no magic or "new" technogy really, it's really more a matter of what the designer focuses on. Many, many designers (and consumers like us) are still focused on the on-axis measured peformance; so naturally that's where the biggest market/money is to be made. Some magazines now offer polar plots that sum on and off axis response when they review speakers and that's a start. But changing awareness and the "norm" always takes time. I'm just glad there are a few folks brave enough to be first.

Thanks and I hope this answers your questions. If not let me know, I will be glad to rant some more,

dB

**Digital Bob** · 16 June 2003, 09:44 Monday

Oops, missed a question.

Point sources... Well this is a bit confusing since the term is often tossed around willy nilly. Here is the deal (as I remember it):

There is an engineering "ideal" called the "pulsating sphere" that point source radiation is one part of. If it truly existed, it's charateristics would include the dispersion of equal energy over all frequencies in all directions from an infinetley small point in space. You might want to read that again...

...it's charateristics would include the dispersion of equal energy over all frequencies in all directions from an infinetely small point in space...

Again this an engineering ideal concept that does not exist in the real world. We don't posess the technology to pull it off yet. Think about it, all frequencies would mean no crossovers from 20 to 20k+. All frequencies with equal energy would mean ruler flat over that same range. And all directions would mean it has to be ruler flat on and off axis from every possible angle above, below, around the point source. How would you mount it? And finally infinetely small means.... well.... small. :LOL: In practice it means that all the sounds would appear to eminate from the same place in space.

So you can see that this "ideal" is just that. Now the REALLY interesting part of all this how each speaker designer has decided to focus on different parts of this ideal. If we understand that, we start to understand the state of loudspeaker design today...

Some designs focus on the ruler flat part.... but only on axis because achieving it off axis would mean a slight sacrifice on axis (conventional designs). Some designs focus on the infinitely small point in space where all sound should eminate from (so called "point source"). Some designs strive to eliminate the crossover for as much of the frequency range as possible (planars for example). And some strive to go for the equal energy in all directions part of the ideal (omnipolars).

Because our current level of technology is still lacking, we can't have it all. Not yet. So the designers focus on what they can actually achieve. And the good ones try and at least pay homage or offer some "fix" for the missing ones (like room treatment for unequal energy in all directions or a rear tweeter to help balance the radiation, for example). The bad designers don't even do that.

I really do hate to sound like a broken record. But it is my contention, and many other's, that designs like the Mirage OM series come closer to the ideal of the "pulsating sphere" than most other designs. Listen to them and check out the science behind them and you will see why.

I promise I won't bore you anymore by illustrating in detail how Ian and Andrew tried to address each aspect of the ideal. Give them a listen and see for youself; afterall that IS what matters in the end.

Good listening,

dB

**Two Feathers** · 26 November 2003, 04:29 Wednesday

Well guys.. after many months of planning, testing and implementing... I have finally finished my upgrade.

I did as people suggested and after testing various brands such as Mirage, B&W, Sonique, VAF, Paradigm, Kef, Monsoon, Sony, NAD, Lynn Classe, Rotel, Marantz, Harman Kardon, Onkyo, Yamaha, Jamo and a few more.... I decided on the following common group:

B&W CDM 9NT (front and rear)
B&W CDM CNT (centre)
Rotel RSP 1066
Rotel RMB 1075
Rotel RDV 1080
Screen Technics 80" white screen
NEC HT1000 DLP projector
Heavy ceiling to floor curtains all way around except for main wall
Thick 1.5" shag pile carpet covering entire floor
9 gauge very good quality speaker wire
Directional interconnects
and a sombrero (for me)

If you read my orignial set up, the improvement is a sure jump. Original system cost was $10k, while this one is about $20k, but worth about $25k due to some great bargain hunting.

Many thanks to all those that provided advice... especially this website.
I am able to kick back and enjoy both music and HT reproduction in a quality level that I am very happy with.

I was able to sell all my old stuff incluign the M&Ks, Loewe TV, Nakamichi receiver and even cables! Even my fiance is quite impressed after being skeptical whether I had made the right decision.

I sold everything first before upgrading so we had nothing for a while, and since I changed the location of the system to a new room, everything was bare for a while.

I have my computer connected to the processor and 5000 songs stored on the HDD, so music flows thick and fast at my place now..

Bascially I transformed an entire room into a listening room. What started out as a dining room with floorboards, a large glass sliding door and an open archway leading into the family room, now has soft furnishings everywhere, including drapes all round. I found bass increased dramatically with no more cancellation in the middle of the room anymore. High frequencies were tamed dramatically and both sound staging depth and width increased substantially.

Point to consider: think about matching rear speakers with your fronts - I have 9NTS all round and the imaging is much better than before... I was quite surprised with this.

Rotel gear is a god send. The value for money is outstanding. All in silver looks great too.

The NEC HT1000 projector was the biggest surprise - absolutely awsome little unit. Very vivid. Very nice.

Time to buy a couple hundred dvds, sit back and put on weight...

****If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly****

**Andrew Pratt** · 26 November 2003, 09:45 Wednesday

Looks like you choose very wisely:T Which sub are you using?

**Lex** · 27 November 2003, 20:05 Thursday

Hmm, I don't remember selling any interconnects to Australia. Strange.

Nice system upgrades, congrats on thinking things out real well!

lex

**Chris D** · 27 November 2003, 22:46 Thursday

Wow, good choice on a lot of the products there. ***9 gauge speaker wire?***** Whoa... now you're talking some serious overkill. I gotta give you props for that! :banana:

I TOTALLY agree with you on matching surrounds to fronts. That really adds a whole new level of sonic matching. I've seen so many people buy a great set of fronts, and then a great set of surrounds, spending a lot of money on each. But together as a set, they severely fell short of audio or home theater cohesiveness.

CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"

**Two Feathers** · 02 December 2003, 05:35 Tuesday

Err... no sub.. that's the only thing i didn't get... to be honest, while the M&K sub was great, the earth shattering effects caused a few problems with the glass sliding door and the neighbour's mantelpiece :roll:
So I decided to do without for a while. The improvement in overall sound quality over the M&Ks has not made me miss the sub... yet

I know 9 gauge is thick

, but I have the componentry sitting in the adjacent room (through the archway) so speaker wire has to travel a fair distance in the walls and roof before reaching the speakers... might as well ensure its good stuff.... after all, cabling was only about 8% of overall cost.

A little disappointed the Rotel can't play DVD-R, but the audio improvement over the Sony DSP S725D more than compensates.

****If you're gonna be a bear, be a Grizzly****

System upgrade

System upgrade

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Related Topics