Consider Triangle Titus or Comete. They match your requirements very well. |
I've always liked Totem when I've heard them as well. They may have a different sound/timbre from Triangles. Triangles are very fast, neutral and transparent, which makes them good at low volumes, like Maggies for example. Totems reminded me more of Dynaudio or even B&W when I heard them, with a somewhat warmer sound but perhaps not as fast and transparent as Triangle.
You'll probably have to go second hand on agon or use a web vendor via agon or a direct vendor site for Triangles.
I've seen on of the more popular Agon members sell Triangle recently. Was it UpscaleAudio? |
agree with buscis2.
Triangle high end is NOT harsh, just very revealing.
If you need close to wall, front port is preferred to back port. My Triangles are front port, my Dynaudios back.
Also, my Triangles may still be the most accurate speakers I own. |
Never heard a pair of Dynaudio's set up properly that I didn't like. Audience line is very good price/performance.
Triangles are a touch faster and more transparent at low volumes, otherwise Dynaudio rules. Very lively and very solid and extended low end for small monitors. |
Upscale's description is accurate regarding Triangles exceptional speed and imaging which is very "Maggie Like" and best in class, in my opinion. This makes them best in class in my opinion for use at lower listening volumes/SPLs.
I would probably still own large Maggies if I did not also own Triangles. They convinced me that dynamic box designs can deliver speed and accuracy like the Maggie planars.
If the Triangle description sounds good and you don't hear these things in the other speaks you try, it may be worth considering even without a listen if the seller offers some sort of satisfaction guarantee.
I own Triangles and Dynaudios. Dynaudio's are outstanding, but not as fast and transparent at low volumes IMHO. That is where Triangle shines in particular.
For what its worth, my local dealer that I bought the Triangles from now sells Usher instead (also Magnepan and Sonus Faber). I have not had a chance to listen to Ushers critically, but I suspect they may have some of the same strengths of the Triangles, so definitely give them a good listen. |
I haven't heard Totems for quite a while but recall loving them for much the same reasons you state when I did.
Interesting about the Usher soundstage. I am not familiar enough with them to say why for sure. More "intimate" room acoustics by design maybe to match the tube orientation of the equipment?
Its very hard to precisely compare two different speakers set up in two different rooms with two different rigs. WHat did the dealer say about the SS with the ushers? I need to get to my dealer to give a listen to the UShers some day soon.
Were the setups at the dealer similar at all to the configuration you will have when you place the speakers in your room? Are the UShers and Totems ported? If so, front or back? THis might be worth taking into consideration based on how they will be placed in your room. |
I'm suspecting multiple factors might contribute to what you heard with the Ushers, speaker design, room acoustics maybe combined with tube amplification could result in the sound stage characteristics you describe.
Having small front ported speakers too far out from the rear wall would probably limit the bass response, but not so much the sound stage, I would expect.
OF course, we all know that no two speaker lines sound the same and taste is a major factor. Some will like a deep but more concentrated sound stage better, some will go more for the "disappears into the room act".
So far the totems sound like a better match to you tastes, from what I've heard on this thread. THe Triangles you've never heard are surely more like the Totems than the Ushers from your description.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Ushers and tube amplification could offer a more concrete explanation? |
Don't know anything about Kudos, Devore and AVI, so I cannot comment. |
Well, you probably have a win scenario at this point no matter which way you go. You obviously know what your looking for when you hear it. |
|
If you think a live performance would sound good in your room, and are up for trying something a little different in order to achieve live-like sound from a small, affordable design, and like the idea of saving a couple c-bills perhaps, definitely try the Walsh first. The smaller mini's should not take too long to break in. If they don't float your boat, return them and go for the Totems. |
Yes. I've owned Ohms since ~ 1978 and currently have 3 pair, Walsh 5 Series 3, Walsh 100 Series 3 and Ohm Ls. Also own Dynaudio and Triangle. Also owned Maggie and B&W in the past.
Never heard Micro Walshes specifically but have researched them along with the rest of the current Ohm line pretty extensively.
The Ohm micro Walsh's would seem to be in line performance-wise with the other speaker models you've considered for your room.
I think Ohm says the micro's can work most rooms, whereas the larger Walsh line drivers are spec'ed to room size. Low end should be optimal with micro's in smaller rooms though, I believe.
John Strohbeen has a good reputation for making valid recommendations with his line based on how the buyer describes their room to him, I would say. |
Knownothing,
Ohms, omnis and other more exotic speaker designs are not for everyone, for sure. Its largely a matter of taste. For ~$1000, though, they do offer something completely different than the various box designs available in that range. |
knownothing,
I've toyed on occasion with the idea of replacing my Dynaudios, which are a pretty decent set of highly accurate monitors, with Ohm micros. Reason being that they are a very good monitor speakers that do most everything very well, but in the end, the Ohm Walsh design convincingly deliver sound like a live performance in my listening room to me whereas the Dynaudios and my other box speakers (Triangles and Ohm Ls) all in the end always end up sounding like just "very good stereo speakers", if that makes any sense.
I keep the Dynaudios mainly because I still like having a pair of nice monitors around for the many things they do well, even though in the end I always levitate back to the Ohm Walshs for the best performance whenever I can. Also I like variety and I figure 3 pair of speaks with the same design, no matter how good, might be a bit too much.
The only full range speakers I hear anymore that will catch my ear tend to be extremely big, massive, and way too expensive for a guy like me with two kids still to send to college. And I'm still not certain even with these that, everything properly set up, they can do what the Ohms do. |
Imaging/location may or may not be an issue. The imaging is different than that from box dynamic designs. That alone could be an issue for many.
Sound from omnis (and Ohms) emanate and interact with the room much more like sound does in a live performance rather than the way it does with other speaker designs. Thats what makes the Ohms special. What you hear more resembles what you would hear at a live performance, from various listening locations, more so than conventional speaker designs.
However, it may take your ears some time to adjust to this if they are trained (as many audio buffs ears are from experience) to hearing conventional box designs.
If you are the type who pays attention to room acoustics at live performances, I'd say it should not be an issue once your ears adjust to the Ohms in your room. Once they do, magic happens and everything is laid out clearly before you, strikingly much like a live performance.
Amplification can make a huge difference. You also have to learn to not focus on the speakers themselves while listening because the soundstage is utterly transparent and can be totally disassociated from the actual speaker location, depending on placement and acoustics.
In my review of the Ohms here on Agon, I relate how the Ohms act as a sort of "sound projector" more than speakers. Take a look at that for more info.
It's interesting that when I changed amps from a Carver to a Musical Fidelity, the sound stage opened up so much and in such an unexpected way relative to the actual location of the speakers, that even my ears, which were adapted prior, were totally thrown off and confused for a bit.
I have a very difficult room shape to deal with. The room is L shaped. The Ohms are located a couple of feet out from the rear wall at the base of the L, and located to fire into the length of the room, which is the main listening area. The Ohms are about 3-4 feet apart but location is skewed ~ 30% or so to the right of center. Yet, when listening about 4-5 feet dead center in front of both Ohms, the center of the sound stage is located dead center between the two side walls and extending 10' in each direction to the side walls on good recordings. Mono recordings all came from dead center between the side walls, about 3 feet to the left of the left -most speaker (yes, to the left of BOTH speakers, believe it or not)! Never heard anything like this before, so I did not recognize it at first! Once I tuned in again, though, audio nirvana! A 20' wide sound stage with the speaks only ~ 3-4 feet apart and the ability to locate every instrument, voice and recording line clearly and precisely.
My Dynaudio monitors ($2500 retail a few years back) image extremely well for a box design as well, but they do not have the Ohm's "you are there" factor.
Bottom line: the imaging works differently with Ohms and omnis. Some may not like it because it IS different and takes some getting used to at first. But, in my opinion, once everything is set up properly and your ears locked in, nothing can beat it, especially at the $1000 price point.
Its low risk to try the Ohms, but if this all sounds to way out there or scary to you, you will probably be very happy with the Totems. THey are a very good choice for a conventional box design in your price range.
Or if this all sounds interesting and the chance of discovering something totally different that can take things to a higher level for $1000 sounds intriguing, give'em a try.
Good luck and please continue to keep us posted whichever way you go.
|
Rebbi,
My pleasure. Again, as I stated earlier, Ohms are not for everyone, which is a shame.
Was at my favorite local dealer yesterday auditioning CD players. Heard a pair of nice Usher monitors ($2-3 grand I believe) on Cambridge Audio 840c, Audio Research tube pre, Rogue Tube power amp. My toes were tapping. Very full soundstage + very fine performance overall.
The dealer also sells Maggies and Totems. I think I saw the Arros but didn't have a chance to listen.
My recollections of Totem monitors when I heard them years ago is that they were one of the best small box designs in regards to overall performance, sound stage and imaging though.
I heard a pair of small VAndy's loosely in NYC recently at low volume only. My impression was that the presentation was not unlike what I hear with Ohms.
They are not omnis or even pseudo-omnis, like the Ohms, or a box design, but am I correct thinking they are somewhat unique in how they do their imaging from most dynamic box designs?
I'm speculating a bit here because I have not really investigated the Vandy design, only heard them briefly.
I'd also go out on a limb a bit and say that Vandy users also often take well to Ohms and omni designs and vice versa, which leads me to believe that you might as well.
Maybe some other Ohm or Vandy owners could chirp in here? |
Knownothing,
I was wondering if you know whether the Ohms you heard were original (series 1 which first arrived in the early 80's), series 2, which I think started in the early-mid 90's through ~ 2005 or 2006, or series 3, which have only been available for a couple of years?
Reason I ask is I owned series 1 prior to my current 2 pair which are both series 3, and there is a huge difference in imaging accuracy. Imaging accuracy in the new series 3 is competitive with anything out there today despite the omni design in my opinion whereas series 1 was not nearly as well defined. Never heard series 2 so I can't comment on those, but from what I have read they are somewhere in between.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to tell by observation alone in that the cages on all three generations look very similar if not the same. My series 3 Walsh 2's look identical to the series 1 I owned prior. |
The Vandy's are not a conventional box design.
The Ohms and Vandies share a couple of characteristics I can think of.
First, driver surfaces are decoupled from the cabinets. Second, both strive for phase coherence, Ohm by using a single driver for most of the audible range and avoiding a crossover in the critical midrange.
Do you think at this point that the Totem's or other box designs you've auditioned in your price range can do what the Vandy's can to your satisfaction? |
Knownothing, a few things I can add:
Micro walshes were the first "series 3" model released I believe and all micro walshes are series 3. As I understand it from John Strohbeen, Ohm owner and principal Walsh series designer, the difference between series 2 and 3 is in the tweeter only, so I would expect much of the overall presentation to be very similar between series 2 and 3.
Series 1, which would include original Walsh 2s, 4s and 5s from th 80's, are an older Walsh design and I can clearly assert much inferior in regards to imaging accuracy and overall timbre.
If the 4's were rebuilt in the 90's, I suspect there is a good chance they are series 2. Your friend would probably know for sure what the difference was when they were rebuilt.
Regarding, cables, I hear huge differences with different interconnects from my digital sources using the Ohms or my Dynaudio Contour 1.3 monitors, perhaps even to larger extent with the Ohms since they are more full range, but I have not done sufficient experimentation with speaker wires to say much about that.
I suspect the differences with speaker wire is less significant in that I am using premium Audioquest cv-6 wires to my Dynaudios but all other speakers , including both pair of Ohm Walsh are in different rooms from my electronics and hook up through rather industrial grade in-wall wiring. The Ohms have such a large soundstage and image so well, in their own special way, that I do not notice any adverse effects despite the big $$$ cost in the wires feeding them.
Also, amplification makes a huge difference with Ohms, more so with my larger Ohm 5's than my 2's. You need high current and significant damping factor for audiophile results at most volumes with the 5's. The 2's are not as fussy those these things still help. The micros are smaller than the 2's and I suspect even less sensitive to current and damping factor specifications accordingly.
Your description of the Walsh speakers imaging and sound stage signature is fairly accurate. The effects of studio or concert hall acoustics on recordings are what they are. The Ohms will reproduce this more so than other speakers perhaps. They will also present this in a manner that depends more so on the signature of the room they are playing in and this will change based on speaker location.
To me, the imaging characteristics of the Ohms are what make them special and exciting. They actually capture the sound of the original recording environment and translate it accurately into your room. The trick is to realize this fact and not resist it and use it to your advantage when setting things up and listening.
Short of listening back in the original environment recorded in (impossible), what more could one ask for? As a long time Ohm affectionado for this reason mainly, it is very hard for me to stay interested for long periods of listening to most any other system I hear, save those perhaps which cost tens of thousands of dollars more. |
Jpaik,
Never heard of Morrison speaks before.
Their web site has a nice accounting of the omni imaging experience compared to conventional designs. From that I would expect some similarities to Ohm , Dueval, German Physiks, MBL and the like, no? |
KN,
I think there is a lot of validity and insight to the assertions on the Morrison site regarding nature of recordings and stereo playback.
I would still assert though that recordings are what they are in regards to how miked, mixed etc. Good stereo recordings that apply or approach the two mike configuration sound phenominal on omnis (or pseudo omnis like the Ohms which intentionally attenuate the output towards the walls to make placement easier). This is where there is the biggest gap between omnis and conventional designs, in my opinion. Conventional designs cannot approach omnis, in my opinion, in the ideal scenario, as described by Morrison.
Listen to a good two miked Mercury Living Presence recording on a pair of Ohms, and welcome to a place that few systems have ever gone before.
In the much more common scenario where more complex mikings are used in recordings, omnis will still deliver the image location information better than conventional designs, but the difference is more marginal. Those used to conventional designs will more likely levitate to the imaging inherent in these rather than omnis, because it comes across as more pinpoint, at least in the horizontal dimension (I'd argue about the vertical dimension even in this case, however, and this is where much of the difference is between the omnis and box designs in this case).
I'd take issue with Morrison in describing the more common recording scenario as a "jumble" in that this infers a lack of imaging precision or accuracy, whereas there can be and often is imaging precision in these recordings, however it is based on the whims of the person who did the mix rather than on any inherent natural location of instruments.
Then there are the recordings that are miked and mixed in a more complex manner AND it is done poorly. Traditional box designs will do a better job of masking this due to their inherent imaging limitations even though the garbage is still there. Omnis will let the garbage "shine through", for whatever it may be worth. |
Jpaik,
What you describe with Morrisons is very similar to the Ohm experience.
Ohm describes their Walsh wide-range drivers as a "Coherent Line Source", not a point source, though I think the difference here is marginal.
Ohm wide-range Walsh driver omni-output is also attenuated in the direction of the walls as I mentioned.
Ohm uses a separate tweeter (non-omni) for the very top end and this fires 45 degrees inward in a standard placement. I think I recall in some Walsh speakers, they may place the tweeter in an upward firing configuration similar to Morrison and Dueval, I believe, but I think this is by special requestl I believe, and more common for use in surround systems than two channel stereo.
Not sure why Ohm doesn't just aim the tweeter up and use a diffusion device of some sort to disperse 360 degrees along with the Walsh driver, like I think the Morrisons and Duevals do. Maybe for ease of placement due to the apparent Ohm focus on controlling early reflections from walls.
Morrisons appear to use a more sophisticated porting design than the Ohms. Would like to hear that in comparison though I have no grievances regarding bass on the Ohms when used with proper amplification. |
ZK,
All I can say with certainty is that EVERY recording (good, bad and in-between) sounds more lifelike or "live" on my Ohms than any other speaker I've owned concurrently (Maggie, B&W, Dynaudio, Triangle) and been able to do direct a/b comparison with. The unique "like the performers are there" aspect not available in conventional speaker design is what attracts people to the omni design in general, I believe.
Others happy with attributes of conventional stereo speakers may not be attracted to omnis.
So omni's are not for everyone. Different strokes for different folks. Thats what makes the world go round, including the world of audio. |
Rebbi,
Congrats on the new additions. Totem is a good choice.
And, you helped generate a long, interesting and informative thread in the process.
thanks. |
The Music hall sounds like a very good cost effective option, if needed. |
Zk,
YEs, I've had at least one pair of Ohms in my system for 30 years.
I've been researching upgrades heavily for the last two years.
Now, I own 3 pair of Ohms (2 Walsh design) as a result. MAggies and B&Ws have seen the door in the process. |
Rebbe,
If you ever get to the DC/Baltimore corridor area let me know in advance + I'd be happy to give you a listen. |
Wanted to toss this into the sub-discussion on this thread regarding omni versus conventional imaging.
Was just listening to "Open Arms" by Journey on standard issue "Greatest Hits CD" on my larger Ohm 5's.
This track has an interesting piano solo opening that lends itself well as a test case in point to the discussion regarding imaging.
Now I doubt anybody would cite these Journey tunes as shining examples of simple two mike audiophile recordings, because overall they are the exact opposite. Also, I've found over the years that many of these Journey tunes sound crappy on crappy systems but hold together pretty well overall on better systems.
So here is what I hear on the Ohm 5's. The piano solo is clearly miked in stereo in a manner that individual keys are clearly located in correct order by note and octave from lower to the left to upper to the right. This is about an 18-20' wide sound stage with my setup, so there is clear separation between individual keys. Also, the soundstage ranges from almost floor level to the ceiling, about 8-9 feet tall.
I also then listened to the same passage on my Dynaudio Contour mkIIs. This is same source and everything with my system. The only difference is the room, which is much smaller, 12X12 approximately, speaks, and speaker cables used. The Dynaudios use Audioquest cv-6 speaker cables which cost something like several hundred dollars whereas fairly conventional industrial grade in-wall speaker wires run to the Ohms.
With the Dynaudios, similar results. However in the smaller room, with narrower sound stage, the individual notes were more closely spaced and a bit harder to pick out accordingly, yet everything still was located in the correct relative position based on note and octave. The soundstage was not as extended vertically and tended to occur mostly at about the same height as the monitors on their stands.
Now once the rest of the tune kicked in, it is no longer even a fair contest. The Dynaudios would need a subwoofer in order to have any chance of hanging with the Ohms in terms of overall impact, dynamics and presentation at a realistic SPL. |
If your cartridge is MM, the Music Hall Bellari phono pre-amp seems reasonably priced. Never heard it though. |
Tawaundabomb,
I think the original Walsh 2's are the speaker that has exposed the most people to the Ohm Walsh sound over the years. They used to be sold via a significant dealer network through the 80's and had a lot of exposure. Then Ohm went factory direct only in the 90's I believe with the series 2 and now series 3.
The thing for those who associate the Ohm sound with original Walsh 2's to remember is that the newer series are a much improved beast when it comes to accurate imaging. That is a fact.
I auditioned Ohm Walsh2 series 3 speaks in my house in detail against my original Walsh 2's, Dynaudios and Triangles before taking the plunge on the Walsh 5 S3s as opposed to a larger full range box design.
The Walsh pseudo-omni soundstage is different from most all conventional box designs, as has been discussed, but the imaging accuracy of the Series 3 is in the same league as Dynaudio and Triangle I can assert. |
Thanks for the kind words! |
Rebbe,
Coincidentally, I heard a pair of Arros recently at a dealer. Had my reference CDs with me that enabled me to judge what I heard versus other systems I've heard recently.
Sound was similar to what you describe, the signature transparency and imaging accuracy was not happening. I think it was due to these also being placed too close to the wall. They were within a foot or two I'd say and the room was about 18 to 20 feet deep and even wider.
Move them out further away from the walls. Try different locations until imaging locks in accurately at your listening position
These are rear ported, right? If so, probably even more important to move away from the rear wall for best depth of sound stage.
Bass level may decrease, but most important to get speaker placement dialed in for imaging accuracy and transparency first. |
Sure thing. After all we went through (mostly you), we got to get those babies "tuned in".
Keep fine tuning the placement until they sound just right at your prime listening position with big sound stage, accurate imaging, and tight clean bass.
My Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkIIs are rear ported monitors that aren't too far off in design from Totems. They can only bloom in their unique when positioned optimally away from the walls, rear wall in particular.
The dealer where I heard the Arros last weekend had various Totem, PSB and McIntosh speaks lined up fairly close to the wall.
Non were set up optimally ( I could tell by listening to my reference CDs in a/b tests on each compared to other systems I've heard recently, including mine), but all other things aside, the Arros held their own very well with all the other significantly more expensive speaks. Very impressive for such diminutive little fellows.
I felt a bit cheated that I didn't get to hear them optimally set up, but since I was mainly looking and listening to speaks and not buying, I didn't want to trouble the sales guy.
In your case, hopefully keeping them further out from walls does not decrease WAF too much. You can always add a sub later if desired for deeper bass. That goes with the territory usually with most any smaller speak in that general price range. |
Rebbe,
Tube amplification for the Arros was definitely a good move.
Audioquest is a safe bet for ICs and cables.
Here's another option on Ebay if needed.
http://stores.ebay.com/essentialhifitweak_W0QQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247
I use DNM Reson and Harmonic Technology ICs acquired from this vendor cost effectively to good effect. I've found their product description to be pretty accurate based on experience.
The particular strength of the DNM Reson compared to Audioquest is PRAT (pace, rhythm, tempo). I was skeptical that an IC could actually provide this prior, but the DNM Resons in comparison to MIT interconnects in particular have made me a believer.
Audioquest may provide a bit brighter sound with more detail. My speaker cables and ID from my Roku Soundbridge are both Audioquest.
I like Harmonic Technology for overall neutrality as well, and use this brand between my amp and pre, but these are a bit more pricey. |
Hi Rebbe,
I have Audioquest CV-6 cables. The Dynaudios, which have a hot top end to start with, perhaps more so than the Arros as I recall sound a bit hot at first listen. The Ohm 5s on the CV6s currently are very laid back by nature and the spades connect similarly in my case to what you describe. No ill effects as you describe there.
The Audioquest G Snake IC on my Roku soundbridge is also bright but balanced in a good way and not a problem.
My experience with these two Audioquest products seem to indicate the line does have a brighter top end than some other lines I've heard, but not necessarily a problematic top end, in fact it seems to work well for me at least in my case. I doubt the Audioquest speaker cables are a problem with a tube amp and Arros when everything is broken in, but you never know...never heard that particular model. Maybe just brighter compared to what you had before?
Breakin may help. GIve it a chance.
Do you still have your old speak cables? Maybe try adding just the new ICs first without the new speak cables and see what that sounds like, then try adding just the new speak cables and judge that configuration in comparison. THen try both together and see what happens there. I think you have 4 possible IC/cable combos you can try at this point among old and new wires. Try each combo as a test and see how each compares. Then decide which is best to start with. You can and should try a different combo again later as well if you so please.
Also, remind me what the IC is connecting to the amp? IS it a CD player or the turntable? What kind of CD player if so? |
I used to be skeptical about the cable thing too. Not any more. Either my ears are better or my system more sensitive or both.
One other thought I had is that power conditioning would probably only help if not already in place, especially with the highly accurate Totems...should help clear things up further if needed. I use a Monster Power HTS1000 strip that cost ~ $150 new a few years back and it too made a noticeable difference by removing audible haze and making things sound tighter and cleaner.
If you still have air and/or brightness issues after all this, I'd still recommend trying the DNM Reson interconnects as a possible solution. They are very "British and refined" sounding BRitish ICs, kind of like adding a touch of the B&W sound to the mix, if you know what I mean. Might be just the thing to tame things down a bit as it does nicely with my Japanese made Denon CD. |
Cool. I've had similar experiences moving from old Monster ICs to newer ICs. I think the ICs make a big difference.
Enjoy. |
|
I've been called a lot of things over the years.... but never eloquent! Thanks!
You made a good move with the Totems. They will hold their value well. Maybe you'll get a chance to try the Ohms someday if desired with little or no financial loss along the way.
I bought my Ohm 2 Series 3, which are still relative unknowns to many and are hard to distinguish visibly from their older, much more commonly found and less refined ancestors, for only $600 or so second hand here on Agon last year.
Ohm micro walshs come up here and on ebay once in a while. They are much easier to identify by appearance for what they are (all micros use series 3 drivers). They typically bring $600-$800 or so used from what I've seen.
The Totems would easily bring that or more should you ever decide to try something different I believe. So both in terms of sound and financially, you made a good investment.
People who might spend tens of thousands for MBL or other high end omnis otherwise are the ones I hope I might convince that it may not be necessary to spend that kind of money out of the gate on speakers in order to get the kind of sound they are looking for. |
"Rebbi, now that you have me thinking about it, I've purchased everything that I currently own without audition."
Yeah, almost everything I've bought in the last 3 years have been without audition as well based on info I gather via websites like this.
That includes amp, 3 pair of speaks (two Ohm, 1 Dynaudio), 2 replacement woofers for another pair of speaks that was a DIY upgrade on the Ohm Ls, the CD player, phono cartridge, and all new interconnects and cables. Also 3 digital cameras.
And amazingly, everything has worked out well. |
Well, if you're hearing it, chances are its real bass alright and rest assured if the only thing that changed was speaker location, it is due to room acoustics. That is normal. I've never met a room that did not have acoustics (for better or for worse).
The main question is does it sound "right" or better to you or not than other locations? If not, try tweaking the exact location a bit and play with toe in. With rear ported speakers in particular, toe out might help as well. Toe in/out will affect how the sound produced out the rear by the port interacts with the room and walls behind as well as what you hear coming out of the front. I'd try playing with toe in/out first and see if you can achieve a better balance overall.
I've done both toe in and out to good effect with my rear ported Dynaudio monitors on heavy Dynaudio stands. They are not unlike the Totems in terms of general design.
If this doesn't work to your satisfaction, try adding the weight next as well as suggested by our friend Knownothing, who I'm suspecting in fact actually knows quite a lot
Nice of the dealer to offer. Always nice to get live feedback from a different set of ears. |
Rebbe,
How are you liking the Unison?
I've been doing some reading on it and it seems like a very nice find. I have some interest in the Unison SE integrated as well.
Did you work something out with Unison regarding the phono preamp yet? I'm curious if it can handle a low output MC cartridge like the Denon DL103R in my system. |
I think the main thing is to make sure the pre is designed to work with either low or high output MC cartridges, or both.
Input impedance is another factor I think but less of an issue in most cases I believe as long as the input impedance of the pre is a good bit higher than the output impedance of the cartridge. I don't think this is an issue for most cartridge/pre-combos, but worth some consideration. I'm quoting some loose facts here, so be sure to confirm them before banking on them. Matching phono system components perfectly on paper is not my forte...I usually have to go through significant trial and error to find what I'm looking for.
Did you identify any good outpboard pres for the Unico that would work with a low output MC cartridge by chance (I'm not currently quite as brave as you and will probably suffer as a result)? |
