Most forgiving high end speaker 10k-20k?

Speaking of EQ and Sonus Faber loudspeakers, I recently heard some Cremona Ms and they were fabulous. They provide a lush, musically involving and detailed presentation that puts a smile on your face and makes you want to spin recording after recording. The cool thing was that this very high end presentation was being powered by a $999 Marantz PM8004 integrated amp. This amp is neutral, quick, well-controlled, and sounded like an expensive stack of components. But to top it off, it has 3-band EQ and a balance knob. The bass control centers on 50 Hz and the treble on 15 Khz, so they can shape the frequency extremes without intruding on the heart of the music. The midrange control centers on 900 Hz and has only +/- 6dB of range. Playing with it can bring more presence to recessed recordings and more depth to forward recordings. There is also a Direct button to bypass tone and balance controls. TAS gave it a rave review. I'm seriously thinking of dumping a rack and a half of accumulated separates and getting one.

I have heard many.

They all say, "I am sorry you wasted your money!'.

Hello John,
So why not sign every post with something like this?

Bill
audiofeil@verizon.net

Jeffkad, this may be late to the party but you only describe one attribute of speaker sound you are looking for. Many of the recommendations above would fit the bill. As for Daedalus sounding bright, no way. I heard Dodgealums and they sounded excellent. In my experience the source probably is the culprit in how you system sounds. For example, I recently repaired a laser on a Rega Apollo CD player. I hooked it up in my system as a transport only using my Museatex BiDat and I was stunned on what happened compared to the same Rega stock model. The original Rega is what most call musical, easy to listen to but lacks focus and resolution and note definition. The repaired Rega just blows it away. Sorry I did not compare them as CDPs. Just goes to show you how a simple source can change everything.

As for some of the recommendations, Harbeth have fantastic mids, Vandy speakers have a more laid back type of sound, Verity are excellent speakers, Dali laid back and a little polite/boring but musical, etc. Each has their own set of strengths and weaknesses. I purchased a pair of Meadowlark speakers based on opinions here on Agon and they were very cheap. I thought they sounded good but not excellent. I found the transmission line bass to boomy sounding. I could hear the box coloration of the speaker. Once I replaced the source with a better CDP, they simply lost the bass issue and the speakers disappeared. I was probably going to sell them prior to this. There is a lot of system synergy going on and you have to understand each component and what it has the ability to do. Personally the source is the most important part of the system. If the source can only produce a 5 out of 10 sound than that is the best your system will sound. If the source is a 10 and the rest of you system is a 5, you will get the best 5 sound out of your system. Fortunately for me, I build and modify audio components and most audiophiles have never heard what a system can do. They play around with tubes, cables, power conditioning, room treatments, etc., to adjust the sound in their systems. I used to do that and will it makes your system better; it does not get you to the level I am talking about and hearing. I say much of my experience is dumb luck, trial and error since I repair and modify gear and get to hear what those changes make and learn why they sound better or worse.

So if you want a better answer to your question, tell us more about the total sound you are looking for and what you don't like about your system.

I hope this was somewhat helpful.

Happy Listening.

Yes, "it" does suck (the new A'gon).

Yup, no more persoanl contact with members. All contact has to be publically displayed....it sucks, but that's the way it is now.

I'll send an email. We used to be able to contact members through Audiogon, but it looks like they've eliminated this feature.

Honest1, I would very much appreciate if you could email/call me re your audition experience, it would help me to know which system you heard.
it does sound like they were not broken in. there was one pair which the owner sold this year after having for almost four years and they had only put about 12 hours on them! unfortunately they were non-believers in speaker break in.... the current owner broke them in and loves them!
anyway it does sound like something was amiss or they were not broken in?
thanks,
lou

Jeffkad

I remember our room at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fest in 2007 I believe. People would come in and I would say "Welcome to our oasis of Music". Kind of funny but the guys at positive-feedback had been in quite a few times, a year later they started to hand out awards called Music Oasis or something like that.
If you get to Denver look us up. As they said in positive feedback "sound to die for"

Yeah. Bring Mariachi Band. Highs to die for and the bass
that rattles windows. Everything under 2K.

Newbee, that's probably as good a range as any. I doubt there's any "official" definition of the presence region, but it may extend a bit beyond 3,000 Hz. I've seem some old Yamaha receivers with specified presence controls of something like +/- 13 dB at 3,000. So at least those controls are CENTERED at 3K. I'm sure other receivers have slight variations.
-Bob

Jeffkad, I consider the presence region to be between 1000 and 3000 hz. Broadly increasing or decreasing the presence region, without touching the highs or low mids/bass can make a large difference in prospective without touching the bass or highs the latter of which has a great influence on soundstage size and depth.

Hah, newbee, I think your right. Audiophiles would be EQ'ing every song, LOL!!! However, I agree it could be an answer to the issue at hand. What is the so-called "presence" region frquency-wise?

FWIW I think a well executed tone control, such as an equalizer or, better yet, a simple three band (bass/mid range/highs with mids centered on 1500 to 2000 hz) could be just the ticket for you and many critical audiophiles provided that you use it in a tape loop where you can disable it with the flick of a switch. Down side on an equalizer is that many audiophiles would be moving sliders about continually trying to optimize every recording (anal?, perhaps. Nah not an audiophile:-).

Many loudspeakers are undersized with to small a cabinet with to narrow a baffle and to small a driver for proper bass or mid bass. Plus we have made much progress in tweeters. So you end up with a thin sound that emphasizes the upper range. On great recordings this may just add extra air but if recordings poor this over emphasis can cause listening fatigue. If loudspeakers are of proper design ie not over compromised
for WAF and profits and the music has merit even if recordings poor the music should still be enjoyable.

Thanks, Jeffkad. But I'm afraid that, among audiophiles, we are doomed to remain a minority! Given the wide range of sound quality among my recordings, being without tone controls just makes no sense. Not if you love the sound of music more than the sound of equipment. I also couldn't live without a balance control. Recording L/R balances are all over the place.

-Bob

Hesson11: Hey Bob, I agree about the tone controls. In fact, maybe that's an answer all by itself. Maybe all we need is old fashioned "tilt" or "presence" boost to make the unlistenable once again listenable, even on a very revealing, unforgiving speaker. McIntosh preamps always had tone controls, no? The new Classe CP-800 preamp has tone controls AND parametric EQ, AND bass management. Perhaps the answer is to keep the ruthless speaker for all it does with great recordings and just EQ the bad/mediocre ones?

Agree with the Harbeth recommendation, but Spendor should be auditioned as well. Spendors and tubes go together very well especially if one is looking for a less analytical sound than the typical high-end speaker.

I AGREE WITH MAPMAN regarding the underlying basis of the question- i.e.- what really well made speaker will sweeten up poor recordings? well, what is a "poor recording"? there's muddy, there's thin (like an old Charlie Parker album),
there's ear-bleeding treble, boomy bass, hiss(sss), background noise, etc.
then there's poorly MIXED albums (what do you propose can correct that?).
now i know of some systems that just sound pretty decent on just about everything, but they are generally called "MID-FI" and they play popular music the way most people like to hear it- ample BASS and a wide-open upper-midrange and treble. you simply do not have to pay a great deal of money for a system that plays MDNA (madonna) or AEROSMITH, this level will also do justice by ok-recordings of jazz and even some classical.
so who needs HD-Audio anyway? if you lust after a level of resolution that makes you believe you are "there", then you have to take a critical look at each piece of the system (plus your room) that gets out of the way of a good recording. and there is an abundance of good recordings, SACD, internet, or just properly engineered in the 1st place. but IF such a well-designed system doesn't turn a terrible recording into a clean clear balanced one, then just adjust your ATTITUDE towards what your real goals are in spending your hard-earned money on a stereo. it's THERE you will find that you really WANT
Realism, or you would much rather get something that "does the job, period".
of course back in the 60's and 70's most of the equipment fell into MID-FI or "HI-WATTAGE MID-FI (that cost a little more but still had the same design).
so either way you couldn't lose; it all just depended on how LOUD you wanted
to play your music. but the sound quality was pretty good overall. i am no expert on when and why things became more "complicated" with the advent
of Quad Speakers and Levinson 25 watt "class-A" amplifiers. that some people had the money for this gear was apparent. i just didn't know anyone who did for a very long time afterwards, or why they would even bother.

Jeff if you choose a speaker that suits your own taste (over the longer term) you have made the right choice irrespective of the level of detail or accuracy it truly has. It does not matter what others think. In my opinion though, I do think that people listen too much to leading edge detail rather than also listening within the body of notes. An example for me is hearing the richness of tone and micro dynamics within single notes being sung on female vocals. To me, this level of detail adds the emotional content. I would also add that I believe that as you get speakers that are more revealing, they add excitement, and your great recordings become better, but you hear some new flaws, your mediocre recordings are more listenable but are more exposed, and some poor recordings become unbearable. Overall you enjoy more of your collection -- my opinion.

Sounds real, sorry, been working like crazy, traveling all over east coast. Have dropped in to read responses quickly but no time to chat.

I'm going to give a listen to the Sonus Faber and the Zu Def Mk4 (if I can find it to listen to). Like some others have stated, while I would likie to find some forgiving speakers, I dont want to be put to sleep. I still want musicality (toe tap inducing),tonality (the wood in woods, the resonance) and a forward "they are in the room" sound (not recessed, mid hall, and similar descriptions). If I dont get the last word in accuracy or detail, I'm fine with that.

Personally, I think the audio community, manufacturers and buyers alike, have become way too obsessed with absolute accuracy and to-the-last-degree detail. In fact, I'll go so far as suggesting that "absolute" accuracy is unattainable (at least at reasonable price points), and maybe many confuse pristine clarity without substance or body as some form of this accuracy. This is of course just my very humble opinion (no need to flame me if you think otherwise). Perhaps the opposite is true, maybe I confuse a little added distortion or midbass hump or tubiness/loose bass as "musicality" when in fact it just represents pleasant inaccuracy. It is what it is, but based on what I'm reading in mags, I do believe we are in an accuracy/clarity/detail fad of amp/speaker building. Again, JMHO.
PS- Sounds_real, now dont take me to task if I disappear for awhile, lol)

Any body heard from Jeffkad lately?

Tubes help with harsher recordings I have found. Try tubes (and tube rolling) if you listen to problematic recordings. And the tubes help with great recordings too, even though this seems illogical on the face of it. Tubes really helped Beatles music for me. By the way, I have Lahave Mela speakers, very nice on difficult recordings (Beatles included) but they don't mask things (like the way a lot of familiar vocal character on Beatles music was missing in action when I had Harbeth SHL5s).

"This discussion has reminded me of how glad I am to have tone controls."

Treason!

I bet you have picture quality controls on your HD TV that muck with the pure natural picture quality that would exist otherwise as well!

Not to mention all kinds of fancy pre-configured settings on your digital camera that make pretty pictures even in low light but muck with the beautiful natural washed out dimness that would be captured otherwise!

:-)

First time I heard the Beatle's "I'm Looking Through You" I was stunned by how amazing it was...on a 4" (maybe) single crappy dashboard ('61 Dodge Lancer) car speaker. I've listened to Yamaha NS10s in major recording studios and still think being waterboarded would be preferable to ever hearing those damn things again. I think ancillary gear, the music, and your taste is all that is ever happening, and to sort of paraphrase an old Buddy Rich comment, "there is no bad sound, just bad music." This isn't true, but it certainly made me feel better to write it.

Does it have to say thank you.DUDE!!

This discussion has reminded me of how glad I am to have tone controls. (Go ahead, barbecue me!) I listen almost exclusively to classical music, and I seek out recordings for the music and the performance, not so much for the sound. Unfortunately, when you take this approach, you get quite a few poor recordings. My pet peeve is screeching violins. (Please, no system recommendations; good recordings DO sound good.) When things get too bright, I just dial in the tone controls.

It's not an ideal fix, because most treble controls are centered on about 10K Hz, while I believe the actual region of violin brightness is quite a bit lower, probably about 2K to 5K Hz. (That's why I wish they still made presence controls to cut back a little in this region.)

I know folks talk about all the bad things tone controls are supposed to do, but I've never heard them. I think, when needed, they fix far more problems than they might possibly cause.
-Bob

Making bad recordings sound good may not be all bad. In the case of open baffle speakers it is adding back the ambiance that is missing. Live music is usually listenable even though the artists aren’t great performers. A lot of that enjoyment is from the ambient sound that is missing on most speakers. Including ambiance is a valid approach.

Bob

If you did get the worlds most forgiving speakers they would probably put you right to sleep.

I have been in love with the Wilson Benesch Curves for about 8 years now. They do everything you are asking about. Extraordinary on good and great source material.
Wilson Benesch has a new speaker out called the Vectors that I recently added to my show room floor. Amazing.

Check them out.

The best
Jim

It's not a question of speakers making mediocre recordings sound good, as much as making mediocre recordings sound their best. There is a lot of equipment that makes mediocre recordigns sound worse by compounding the problems, while making good recordings sound artificially more detailed than they really are by boosting highs and cutting lows. This gear will ultimately become unbearable on the good recordings too when the thrill of false detail wears off.

Most people don't know what the TRUTH sounds like in a recording because they weren't there when it was recorded and played back in the studio. Some believe that if your ears don't bleed while playing a mediocre recording then you are not hearing the truth, but simply masking its warts. While there is some truth to this it is not completely accurate. I have heard some expensive speakers which sound highly resolving, but only because they don't seem to properly reproduce all of the complex harmonic structure in the recording, and thus sound thin, giving a false impression that they are more accurate. At some point during my speaker search I realized that NO speaker completely tells the truth. Every speaker and component in your system lies at some level. Once I accepted that fact I stopped chasing the "most accurate" speaker and changed to the speaker which gave me the "most satisfaction". Granted, that turned out to be a fairly well resolving speaker, but one which is also able to not drive me out of the room on lesser quality recordings. I suspect that you too can find a well resolving speaker which can also play mediocre material, but the sad truth is (IME) you must compromise somewhere between the two. Hopefully you can satisfy both types of recordings, squeezing out enough resolution with well recorded material, yet still achieve at least acceptable playback with lesser recordings.

No speaker, including highly detailed ones, presents the music exactly as it was recorded on the disc or lp. In fact there is no one sound that represents what the grooves or digits represent. Every stereo system, including the mixing engineer's, gives its own interpretation of what's on the disc or lp. Our ears and brains all hear differently too.

There are tradeoffs in every speaker design. Some speakers provide lots of detail but may sound thin or bright, timbres may not be natural, or they may not communicate emotion very well.

Really the only way to tell if a speaker is right for you is to put it in your system and listen to it for a while. I wish it was easier but it's not.

Larry i certainly gave some well thought out choices. As a former owner of Parsifal Encore's, I can certainly agree with the Parsifal recommendations. Even though forgiving, the P/E's do allow the character of upstream components to be revealed. In my system, they sounded very good w/ an Accuphase amp, and even better with tubes. They DO need some power to come alive though. Another speaker, well below your price range, is the Eggleston Andra 1. The Andra's need big power though. If it were me, I would re-read Larry i's comments on the Audio Notes. I think his comments about going w/low power tubes, may be in line with what you are looking to achieve. That said, I would also consider the DeVore 0/96's...! I am running them quite happily, with 25 watts.

I don't know what went wrong with the Daedalus speakers I heard. I was very surprised to hear tehm sound that way, and disappointed that the search would have ot continue. I do remember that they did not have the crossover upgrade to the capacitors (the owner was going to have that done). Who knows - bad cable match?
I second Rockadanny's Eggleston recdommendation. I heard them briefly at CES, and found them to be fairly resolving and very non-fatiguing. I considered them as an alternative to Ascendo, but never got around to doing a comparison in home.

If a loudspeaker makes mediocre recordings sound good, then something is either wrong with the loudspeaker or the components it is matched with. If you find that some high resolution speakers sound worse than might be expected on mediocre recordings, odds are that the speaker either doesn't have well-matched drivers, or that the crossovers are not optimal for the selected drivers.

You should always want to hear the "truth" out of any loudspeaker. Any loudspeaker that editorializes some sounds is a poorly made piece of kit.

If you have a well-made speaker that you have heard at a dealership that sounded great there but not at your house, chances are the sound problems are in your upstream components. Never try to ameliorate the soundscape through buying speakers that editorialize. You can do that with components (such as tubes vs. solid state), or even interconnects and other wires.

In the $10K - $20K speaker range I would have to opt for the Coincident Technology Total Victory V (MSRP $14,999). It is a high sensitivity speaker (95 db, which allows you to use any number of excellent low-powered tube units, such as the Coincident Technology Frankenstein at 8 watts Class A/channel (MSRP $5,999/pr). The Coincidental Technology Line Stage (MSRP $5,999)is also the best I've heard under $10,000 and is actually better than almost anything even further up the food chain.

Don't have the experience to comment on all (or even most) of the suggestions – but I did in fact seek to answer that very question myself, and ended up with the Verity Parsifals. Lesser recordings sound great. Exquisite recordings sound exquisite. But, certainly and overlooking upstream electronics for the moment, room interaction is likely the single most important factor regarding how any given speaker will sound at any given moment. So, considering speakers in the abstract – apart from the "ecosystem" in which they will be asked to perform – is likely not capturing much of what is material to the question.

Just as an example, my listening space is pretty confined, has a nasty (and unfortunately untreatable) first reflection point on one speaker, but an open room on the other (so pronounced asymmetry), and a limited ability to pull them too far off of the front wall. Thus, the Parsifals "fit" in my space better than many: adjustable front- or rear-firing bass modules gives fantastic flexibility and the heavily-loaded midrange driver (providing the lush and wonderful midrange for which they are known) is wired to roll off naturally without imposed crossover points resulting in a relatively "beamy" presentation. That is, the dispersion pattern coming off the midrange is relatively narrow. This may be a huge disadvantage in some spaces, but where first order reflection points are a real issue, it is very helpful. Finally, they're real small. As much as I'd love to play with the likes of Avalon, Maggies, Wisdoms, etc., just plain don’t have the real estate. Thus, even before hearing them, their design rendered them an almost-ideal prospective “fit” for my space.

In sum, I wouldn’t purport to have The Answer – and there likely isn’t one – but there are certainly many factors to consider. I’ve settled on my answer, but certainly not one size fits all.

Detail can't happen without accuracy.

Accuracy can be pretty or ugly.

An accurate image of a pretty girl is pretty.

An accurate image of Medusa ain't so pretty.

What happens to the pretty girl if you apply the same tweaks necessary to make Medusa presentable?

So clearly accuracy and detail is desirable but still can be a double edged sword. Recordings are what they are. They typically range from mostly good to not so good, but few worth listening to are the audio Medusa, ie few have no sonic merit at all.

There is an up and down side to almost everything.

Honest1 - As a Daedalus Ulysses owner, I'd bet that the Daedalus speakers you auditioned where not properly broken in. I've had my Ulysses for about 4 months now, and initially, I was ready to give up on them... but armed with good advise from fellow Audiogoner "Raquel", I put my Ulysses thru a formal & regimented break-in process for approx. 200 hours. The break-in process was a PIA, but now the brightness & fatigue you referenced is gone and they are making beautiful music.

BTW, my previous speaker prior to the Ulysses were Harbeth M-40.1's. Another great and very forgiving speaker... more forgiving that the Daedalus Ulysses IME, but also a bit darker in presentation. Both outstanding speakers, just different flavors. I could be happy with either one.

I have found that, in general, I prefer speakers with soft dome tweeters. To my ears, when they are properly fed, I am less likely to be bothered by them and can enjoy lesser quality recordings vs. other tweeter types. That and a good supported bottom end also contributes to less fatigue for me. This is probably why I prefer the sound of Eggleston speakers. Are they the most revealing? No. But to my ears they are very musically engaging and highly satisfying.

03-09-12: Honest1
Interesting about the Daedalus... a couple years ago, I got a chance to hear them at someone;s house. My immediate impression was that they were very bright and fatiguing in the high frequencies.

While I don't question your perceptions under whatever circumstances existed at the time, including room acoustics, source material, etc., there is no way that the Daedalus speakers, the recent ones at least, can be characterized as bright and fatiguing. Their treble, IME and that of many other Daedalus owners who have posted about them here and elsewhere, is one of their strongest attributes, combining speed and detail with a very natural sound that is easy to listen to.

I should mention, also, that the Ulysses model I have has a three-position tweeter level control on the back, which can provide a slight cut or boost to the treble (indicated as 1 db) if necessary to compensate for problematic room acoustics. Perhaps the owner of the speakers you listened to had it set to the boost position unnecessarily? In my case, btw, I've been sufficiently pleased with the treble balance in the neutral position of the switch that I've never even tried the other positions.

Regards,
-- Al

Interesting about the Daedalus. I had high hopes for these speakers after hearing someone play an electric violin through one of their combo amps (a combination preamp/amp/speaker all in one box for musicians to use on stage) at a NAMM convention (Music instrument euivalent of CES). It sounded so obvioously superior to anything else there I never forgot it. When I read years later they made home speakers, and people were describing similar sound to what I heard, I was intrigued. Finally a couple years ago, I got a chance to hear them at someone;s house. My immediate impression was that they were very bright and fatiguing in the high frequencies. I had brought my Sonics Allegras along for comparison, adn they sounded as I expected, much more listenable in the highs. The Daedalus was superior in the lower freuencies, though. If you're interested in them, I would definitely give them a chance, but call Daedalus and see if there is someone in your area who can let you have a listen.

Some excellent suggestions, Silverline, Sonus Faber, Harbeth. When I have listened to them, theyseem on the warm, forgiving side. This is set against, Focal and B and w. Excellent speakers, but I find they have an edge to them, which seems to make them unforgiving.

I second Dodgealum about Daedalus. Everyone is sure to recommend there own speakers, but I have'nt really found a recording, over 2 years, that I've wanted to turn off with my DA-RMA monitors. They are also unfussy about positioning and room dimensions

While i can see the point of trying to make poor recordings sound better to make more music worth listening to, and i think you can find many forgiving speakers, but will you forgive yourself for a speaker that does not show you what is recorded ? Surely the only way it can correct a bad recording is by removing information or changing it, so what will it do with good recordings vs an accurate and revealing speaker? I am more and more leaning towards thinking that 'detail is king' and if you truly present enough accurate detail then other much sought after attributes like soundstage, timbre, etc will fall into place and that emotional connection to the music will be there. I dont think it comes from forgiving speakers for myself. I tried that route to some extent and more music certainly is pleasant, but it made me sleepy.

I highly recommend Ascendo Systems speakers. They really push the boundaries of analytical vs. musical, giving a very highly resolving and very musical presentation. I have the System ZF3s. I have not been happier with a speaker since I got my Spica TC50s 25 years ago. I have also owned Spica Angelus, Talon Hawk, Sonics Allegra, Audio Physic Virgo, home auditioned Magnepan 1.6QR and Linn Espek, been to several CES/THE shows. The System M-S stood out as spectacular at the CES I heard it at, and the Z provides the same sound in my living room. It makes me think the bad recordings are not so bad, but are really just resonating with the problems in our systems.

One of the Salk SoundScapes might fit the bill. They have an open baffle “bloom” that is fantastic for all types of music. It even makes mono Larwrence Welk shows great and I hate Larwrence Welk.

Bob

With the upper end Vandersteens, you can tailer the speaker to sound good in the room its in...can't do that with others.

I agree on the Harbeth M40.1 recommendation. I would also suggest you investigate Daedalus Audio. Very resolving yet never fatiguing.

Some good suggestions here. I would second Sonus Faber. I would add Dynaudio.

I think Onhwy61's advice is excellent: focus on system synergy. As others suggested, I would start with the speaker/room interface. Then choose an amp that mates well with your speakers. I'm not saying you should actually buy the speakers first and the amp second, though you could do that. I'm saying that thinking backwards from room to speakers to amp to preamp to source can be a very effective way to think holistically.

As to the issue of whether or not you want highly RESOLVING speakers, I believe the answer is: It depends. If your love the sound of your upstream components, then highly resolving speakers may be very pleasing. If the flaws of the upstream components annoy you, then highly resolving speakers will magnify that annoyance, IME. On the subject of the listenability of bad recordings, you may find this thread of interest.

As to the issue of whether a more neutral system or a more colored system is likely to yield good results with bad recordings, again I think the answer is: It depends. If the colorations are euphonic, they very well may improve the listenability of bad recordings. But of course many colorations are nothing more than audible distortions, and that can get old fast. Someone above suggested that, by increasing neutrality, you are more likely to reveal what a recording does right, and hence increase the recording's listenability. I think there's a lot of truth to that. But I also think that it is far more difficult to assemble a system with an ear to neutrality than an ear to coloration. On the topic of neutrality, you may find this thread of interest.

I also believe that the beneficial effect of neutrality on listenability stops at some point, and that the clearest window to a bad recording isn't always the most pleasant. Audiophiles often express this by saying they want more "warmth," a large subject in its own right. On the topic of warmth, you may find this thread of interest.

That should keep you reading until Easter.

Good luck.

Bryon

Well, you know have several years worth of speakers to audition:)

"With great recordings it is fantastic but with poor recordings it brought out all recording flaws."

Audio dealers love to hear things like this.

If the flaws exist, they exist. IF the system filters these somehow to make the flaws sound more tolerable, you can be sure it is doing the same to the good stuff in the music as well. Works kind of like make-up. Take that for what its worth....

Counter to intuition perhaps, lesser recordings sound best when played on a system that is clean and highly free of distortion top to bottom. THat allows the more subtle good things to play and tip the balance towards the good. My estimate is that 80-90% of the recordings most people listen to are good enough to affect a music lover who cares about sound quality.

Now if you are one of the breed that music cannot be enjoyable unless the sound is perfect. then you are scr---d to a great extent perhaps, because a relatively small % of recordings approach perfection. They are what the producers want them to be. You can like it or not, but that is what recorded music is. It ain't perfect!

Tell us more about your room and listening preferences and I will attempt to provide an end to end recipe for a rig that can deliver the goods but is also "forgiving" for moderate cost.