Yes, the diagram helps. I don't know how much flexibility you have with rearranging the room, but if you can move stuff around, I would rotate the bed 90 degrees and move it to the other end where the gear currently resides. Put the sofa next to the bed, and locate the gear along the short wall firing towards the bed. This more conventional short wall arrangement should give you a much smoother frequency response, especially the low frequencies. My room is 21 x 14 x 8, and with a long wall arrangement like you have I had a 30 dB null at 70 Hz. I know your most urgent issue is the high end, but it's easy to tame a room that is too hot. But even if you accomplish that you won't get good sound unless you get the low frequencies, especially below 300 Hz, straightened out. If you start using REW, you will see what I am talking about right away.
Speaker shootout update; aggressive treble eliminating some (fairly?)
I've been trying out speakers in a complicated shoot out, both bookshelves and towers — all in my home with my gear. I'm looking for speakers obtainable up to about $4k but could go up (or down) a bit if the right thing came along.
Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.
Recent auditions, type:
Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)
Coming soon:
Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)
Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.
The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)
The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.
I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.
Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.
Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.
Recent auditions, type:
Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)
Coming soon:
Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)
Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.
The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)
The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.
I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.
Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.
299 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
...also would add that dips in bass response will tend to add emphasis to the rest which could also be a factor in the overall tonality issues. I bet the Fritz do really well if set up facing lengthwise with some distance to rear wall somewhere around where the bed is currently. Other smaller speakers should do better as well with the extra bass reinforcement from the walls/corners. Maybe some taller ones even cut it, who knows, unless you try. |
@mapman @brownsfan Thanks for looking at the diagram. As I said in other posts, I'm NOT having problems with the highs w/bookshelves. Improving the lows would be a reason I'd move things around. (I'll try the REW.) The suggestion to lower my seat also helped. Alas, though, I cannot move them for another reason — the plugs on that side of the room all have reversed polarity which I tried to trouble shoot over many days with folks on this forum — to no avail. Thus, I'm stuck until I hire an electrician or get rid of my guest bedroom. 1st world problems! But the sound is fine for bookshelves. Thanks for sharing your setup. I'll study it. I'm really tempted by Ohms. Maybe, maybe. Oh, and you saw this on Bosch, right? https://images.app.goo.gl/FX1wVPkpX4XzU2WV8 |
To Fritz Fans, Most agree Scanspeak and Satori drivers are good, ...I’ve used more than a few in DIY builds myself. Also owned older Totems and Signature Model One too for many years as a baseline reference speaker. Totem Acoustic has evolved beyond the few models listed so far, comparatively.
Which ones?
If yes, can you share likes or dislikes and which Totem model, Thanks. |
Interesting how many of us suggest lengthwise vs widthwise. I was also wondering if a lack of lows is contributing to the brightness. You’d think though with how close he is to the back wall when setup widrhwise, he’s have exaggerated bass. I wonder if he’s got a suckout like suggested. Hilde did mention to me that he felt like the lows on the Carbons were rolled off so I’m wondering if that is the suckout or the overall size of his room and the little carbons not being able to pressurize / grip the room bass wise. His AP speaker cables and front end should not be the culprits. I don’t have any experience with those focals or ml’s he was experiencing the brightness from... |
@b_limo I was also wondering if a lack of lows is contributing to the brightness.There is no lack of lows in my room. The lows are fine, deep, right, taut. No problem. Why "rolled off"? Specs say: Carbons 38Hz-35Khz +/- 3 db Focals 39Hz - 28kHz +/- 3dB ML 60 xti 35–25,000 Hz ±3dB In actual listening experiences, bass notes were present in the towers that were not even registering in the bookshelves, while slightly higher pitched bass notes were not taut in the bookshelves, even with solid state. Kind of didn’t expect them to be, and they weren’t. But they’re bookshelves, right? They sounded really good. But down at the bottom, how could they compete? Maybe if I had a 300w amp, the difference would disappear, especially since the bookshelves are harder to drive. |
" Easy to drive" and efficient are two different things. Easy to drive (like Fritz) means most any amp can drive the speakers with good tonal balance. But bass always still requires exponentially more power as frequency gets lower. So if also inefficient (like Fritz and most small monitors with extended bass that must work harder to deliver bass than similar larger speakers) the amp will clip sooner at higher volumes. So more power (and current usually in the case of smaller speakers capable of extended bass) is definitely needed to go loud and clear including bass with most any near full-range monitor. Tube amps (and many Class D amps) tend to soft clip which is easier on the ears than most SS amps that hard clip. |
I have driven the Carrera's with both the 30 wpc EL-84 based Music Reference RM-10 and the 40 wpc EL-34 based Mystere PA-11 with no problem with frequencies at either end of the spectrum. Both amps were fronted by the Supratek Chardonnay so a similar compliment as hilde45's setup with a less power. The speakers were set up in a 15' x19'x10' room 32" from the sidewalls and the front baffle 44" from the rear walls using a short wall setup. So my point is the speakers are capable of balanced frequency reproduction Though the Carbon 7 Mk II will not quite match the Carrera note for note on either end it will be a well balanced speaker up to the capabilities of those specific drivers. So 4 or 5 hz on the bottom end and less detail on the top end. |
@hilde45 Positive thoughts for chapter-2. Your next speaker coming in shown here generating a nice flat frequency response after 10khz up. https://www.salksound.com/gallery/SS%206M/fr.jpg Same Be tweeter in a larger 3-way version at the Capital Audiofest show with 1/2 the tube amp power and mono block transformer grunt you have now. https://www.audionirvana.org/forum/title-to-be-added/audio-shows/capital-audio-fest-2018/101442-day-... With low-height stands for that low ceiling room, you’ll be moving from component thoughts closer to music on this next go-around, I believe. |
Be interesting to read impressions of the Salk. ASR did measurements of the WoW1 and they were nothing like what is posted on the Salk site. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/salk-wow1-bookshelf-speaker-review.14842/ |
@djones That's quite a damning review from ASR and the measured sensitivity (below 80db), if true, would probably put this speaker out of the range of most people looking to spend modestly on amplification. Back in January, I went for this speaker based on forum comments and reviews from elsewhere but after learning more, I changed my order toward the higher sensitivity and more expensive SS 6M because I didn't want to have to drive such a difficult load. I noticed that Jim Salk recently changed his sensitivity of the SS 6M from 90 to 87 db because an error in his graph was discovered. I suppose one can always make the argument that measurements don't matter and that any piece of equipment has to be experienced to be tested, but even so, the fact I knew I would have tube amplification influenced me to narrow down options by looking for somewhat easier speakers to drive. So, numbers have some role to play. It helps if procedures for arriving at the numbers is standard and if the reported numbers (whatever the method) are accurate. I have no idea where the truth lies with the Wow1. |
Looking up the woofer used in the Wow1 Seas W12, the specs are consistent with the frequency response test and findings on this ASR site. Definitely makes a good argument for a better woofer driver. @Hilde45, If any of these graphs and tests are close to accurate, it’s probably a good thing you moved up to the Salk 6M SS. The published driver tests on the Satori 6.5 woofer used in your next speaker definitely looks better between 100hz and 2k so it really depends on that x-over. You’ll have to test and see. A few colleagues in a different group who run 82db sensitivity ProAc Response speakers with 6-8w low watt triode amps, with nice transformers, specs don’t look great and yet its very musical and plenty loud for most folks. In your smallish room, might be okay. Its all in the transformers, good luck on the next chapter of demos :) |
@b_limo and @hilde45, You will get a null at any frequency resulting from a distance that corresponds to one quarter wavelength from any room boundary. A sound wave reflecting off of a surface will be exactly out of phase with its primary wave at 1/2 wavelength creating a substantial cancellation of that wave. The formula is 281.5/ ft.to back wall = frequency of null. So if your ear is at let's say, 2 ft from the back wall surface, there will be a substantial null at 281.5/2 = 140.75 Hz. With a 6.5 ft ceiling and normal seating height, one would expect a null at 87 Hz and its multiples. With a 14 ft room depth, there will likely be reinforcement of at 40, 80, and 160 Hz, so one might in fact get some significant low frequency reinforcement from the back wall, consistent with b_limo's comment above and your subjective impression of bass frequencies. In your case there could be some fortuitous cancellation of the 87 Hz null by the 80 Hz back wall reinforcement leading to unexpectedly flat low frequency response. This could be one of those rare cases where long wall orientation is better than a short wall orientation. With respect to imaging, if your ear falls at 2 ft or less from the back wall, that would give you a delay of 4 milliseconds or less, which might be early enough to not be heard by the ear as a separate signal. All of this gets an order of magnitude easier with REW measurement. Before I started using REW, I had an acute awareness of things not being quite right, but I wasn't able to put my finger on exactly what was causing the problems and figuring out what to do about it. When you are able to get REW up and running, it will be interesting to see how the room actually measures. I expect you will be able to correlate what you hear with what you measure, and it should enable getting whatever speaker you are working with to perform well in your setting. |
Hello @brownsfan, with REW, were you able to effectively use a simple USB microphone to your personal computer or laptop, or did you end up also buying a dedicated hardware audio interface too for improved results? Also, did you end up with a simple mic such as the Dayton or something more, for more accurate readings? Good helpful rec btw. |
I noticed in the ASR review of the WoW1 if used with DSP it corrected very good. I suspect in your room no matter the speaker DSP would make an improvement. I use ARC and it works very well, so does Dirac I've used it too. The main thing it does for me is attenuate the low frequencies, sounds like you need to tame the higher frequencies. REW is excellent from everything I've read about it but it's harder to use and you would need to load the filters in something if you decide you want to use them. |
Thanks to progress with digital technology, DSP is not a bad word these days (except to some old-fashioned purist audiophiles). Lots to gain and little to lose if done right. Especially in acoustically challenged rooms. Should make getting to the desired results much easier.....and perhaps even less expensive in the end. |
@hilde45, Great post. The issue of harsh treble is one that’s very important to me when assessing any new speakers. I know I cannot live with speakers which have obvious treble issues. I say ’obvious’ because in my experience ALL loudspeakers have SOME treble issues - yes all of them. For example, I heard some Kerr Acoustic K320 floorstanders which had according to their site have a 2” True Ribbon tweeter with 0.027g diaphragm mass extending all the way to 45kHz, and they had admirable treble with no obvious nasties. Was the treble perfectly clean? No, it wasn’t. Not nearly as clean as I would have liked. Why was that? I don’t know. My Rega RS1s have a specially vented domed treble unit allegedly giving them greater headroom from distortion, but are they totally clean? No, they’re not. Very good and with no constantly edgy unpleasant treble issues but not perfectly clean, far from it. I know that some claim the treble of the Harbeth SLH5s aluminium dome to be inferior to that of the M30/M40s which share the same SEAS fabric tweeter. Yet others say they can’t hear any problems. I guess the perfect tweeter has not yet been built, nor the perfect crossover. I know that some tweeters cannot be crossed too low without distortions appearing at that point eg on certain male vocals. The way that a tweeter is mounted to the baffle also appears to be a factor in how clean it will sound. British reviewer Noel Keywood used to complain that the majority of speakers he tested had their frequency response tilted upwards to get more immediate attention during auditions. It would also give them a bright sound which some would eventually find very tiring. Sometimes treble issues can be down to the recording and the way it was miked etc, but that’s rare and not the speakers fault. As far as I’m concerned no tweeter is as clean and life-like as I’d prefer, but then I’ve not heard the latest beryllium or diamond domes, and don’t have to decide exactly where to put the crucial crossover point. Anyway, thanks for posting as this is the kind of real world experience many will find useful when drawing up potential shortlists. Especially those who are particularly sensitive to treble issues. I recently read a review for the Graham LS5/9f by Wojciech Pacuła which might be highlighting the extent of this problem. It was originally posted by @highend666, and here’s a direct quote. ’It is much easier for me to say who will NOT like it. The Grahams will not be liked, I think, by those who like highly detailed sound. The LS5/9f will not offer it. Also those who like a rigid, clear attack and precise sound will not be satisfied. These speakers will not be their first choice. They won’t also fulfil expectations of those for whom the bass must be perfectly controlled at all costs. Grahams don’t do that. They do something completely different: they are unbelievably natural’ http://highfidelity.pl/@main-1002&lang=en |
This discussion of test tones and REW reminded me of a couple tools I have used. If you look at deep bass, amroc shows that your room has a couple of nodes at 40/42hz and another one at 62hz. https://amcoustics.com/tools/amroc?l=27&w=14&h=6.5&ft=true&r60=0.6 If you decided you need to treat these nodes, the best solution is to start buying GIK Acoustics Scopus tuned membrane bass traps. Buy 2-4 of the Scopus T40. Then ask them to make custom T60 models (they will do this for you). As far as testing for bass NULLs, REW can help, but probably the best way I have found is to do it by ear using test tone sweeps. You can use the following tool to generate 5 second test tone sweeps: https://www.wavtones.com/functiongenerator.php Select the "Sweep 1" option. Then create and download a separate file for each sweep. I like to sweeps that cover 10 Hz at a time. Start with a file where Start Frequency = 20 Hz and Stop Frequency = 30 Hz. Then generate additional files (such as 30-40, 40-50, etc.). You can save them all on your computer and then burn a CD. As you play each sweep, you can hear when the volume of the bass increases or decreases. The decreased areas are where you have a problem, which can usually be improved by tuned membrane bass traps. |
Thanks djones and @mapman. I think I'll order that Minidsp UMIK-1 @cd318 Glad the post is eliciting such a good conversation. I'm learning a lot. Given how much I have to learn, I think the first step is to get a speaker which sounds mostly good — with no dealbreakers. If I'm already thinking about the lengths I might have to go to fix problems, then that is at least a clue to keep trying. I can tweak "good" to "great" later, if need be. We're talking about choosing a hittable pitch to swing at. @auxinput Thanks for putting my data into this table and for the test tone sweep page. I'll try those. |
@auxinput By the way, it appears there are tone generators on Spotify, etc. too. Is there a reason not to search out these tones via a streaming service rather than download each one, burn a CD, etc.? In other words, would this do it? Audio Test Tones ALBUM Audio Test Tones 2013 48 min 42 sec 1 kHz 0 dB 10:05 20 Hz -10 dB 0:34 30 Hz -10 dB 0:34 40 Hz -10 dB 0:35 50 Hz -10 dB 0:34 60 Hz -10 dB 0:34 100 Hz -10 dB 0:35 125 Hz -10 dB 0:34 250 Hz -10 dB 0:34 400 Hz -10 dB 0:34 800 Hz -10 dB 0:34 1 000 Hz -10 dB 0:34 1 250 Hz -10 dB 0:35 2 500 Hz -10 dB 0:34 3 150 Hz -10 dB 0:35 4 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 5 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 6 000 Hz -10 dB 0:34 7 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 8 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 9 000 Hz -10 dB 0:35 10 KHz -10 dB 0:34 11 KHz -10 dB 0:35 12 KHz -10 dB 0:35 13 KHz -10 dB 0:35 14 KHz -10 dB 0:35 15 KHz -10 dB 0:35 16 KHz -10 dB 0:35 17 KHz -10 dB 0:35 18 KHz -10 dB 0:36 440 Hz -10 dB 1:05 Sweep on both channels 0:46 Left and right channel sweep 20 Hz to 20 KHz -10 dB 0:13 Pink noise -10dB 3:04 Pink noise out of phase -10 dB 1:04 200 Hz left and right channels in phase -10 dB 1:07 200 Hz left and right channels out of phase -10 dB 1:06 Left channel 10 KHz -10 dB 1:06 Right channel 10 KHz -10 dB 1:06 Drum solo mono 120bpm 5:30 Drum solo stereo 120bpm 5:30 |
I agree with @b_limo 's post back on page 1. Many speakers today are designed with a tipped up treble aka too bright. In the showroom this comes across as loads of detail. At home over the long term it becomes fatiguing. It has to do with the choice of tweeter, the design of the crossover, and other factors. Your space isn't helping but it's not the major culprit. Echoing b_limo, when you find a speaker you really like it'll have a soft dome tweeter or possibly a beryllium implemented verrrry carefully. |
@decooney, I just bought the MiniDSP mic sold by Dayton and run that into my iMac. Nothing else. All, I use test tone generators as well as REW. Tone generators are great for finding room resonances, and when I have a deep null, I like to play the center frequency and walk around the room to find the low and high pressure areas. Tone generators are great, but REW gives you so much more useful information! Waterfall plots and impulse graphs are usually more useful than just frequency response curves. I'm also starting to use the REW spectrograph. This is a test tone generator I like to use. You can select frequency or a musical note (assuming 440 Hz tuning). http://https//www.szynalski.com/tone-generator/ This is an SBIR calculator that is very useful in my opinion. http://tripp.com.au/sbir.htm The Amroc calculator has already been mentioned. Here is the link\ https://amcoustics.com/tools/amroc?l=20&w=13.9&h=8.1&ft=true&re=EBU%20listening%20ro... |
By the way, it appears there are tone generators on Spotify, etc. too. Is there a reason not to search out these tones via a streaming service rather than download each one, burn a CD, etc.?It depends. If you can get sweeps that provide a small sweep (i.e. 40hz to 50hz), then it's good. The list of test tones did not really give you small amount of sweeps. Sure, you can test at 40hz, then test at 50 hz, but these are sine waves that stay at that frequency (i.e. plays a 50hz sine wave for 20 seconds). What you need is a sweep. That is a test tone that starts at 40hz, then gradually increases until it hits 50hz. This will show the entire span between 40 hz and 50 hz (you could have a bass null around 45hz or so). |
Well I did some experiments playing the speakers the long way down the room and it was inferior for sure. Placing the speakers on the long wall and playing across the short width of the room was better for imaging and tonal balance. Of course I have not done an extensive analysis of the room with the various tools we are talking about but I could do that at some future point. But, back of the envelope, it is better to put the gear on the long wall. |
Hoping once again that the Salks will work out this round!Also that you gain some knowledge from your sweeps:-) I've had the Harbeth C7ES here for a couple of days. First observations are 1.these largish monitors need to be out a couple of feet for smooth bass 2.silky smooth and natural 3.harsh upper mids are handled by rounding them off,sort of 'blunting' them so they aren't excruciating.Less good recording are much more listenable. They are just as dynamic and detailed as the Tektons but put me back a few rows instead of front row center.And they somehow sound best to me with the damned lamp cord rather than the AP or Clear Day cables.I'm going to pull out my old mid monos and try them out of curiosity.Just thought you'd be interested as your journey continues:-) |
@jtcf Heard my buddies Harbeth 40.1s with my former EL34 tube amp, sounded pretty darn nice, weighty transformers drove them fine in 50w strapped triode mode. Curious to know if you are running the 2-way or 3-way Harbeth’s, and if you have other output tubes for the Mid Monos to try, KT77, KT88s, other. If you report out on the test results for your combo or make posts in a separate QS thread elsewhere, will be on the lookout for it. Thx. |
Hi OP, Interesting thread and I am sure you get more opinions than you need! I am all SS stuff and love maximum resolution and soundstage without harshness or fatigue. Not an easy combo! I have had or auditioned B&W, KEF, Proac, Focal and Revel. The Proacs had amazing treble, and clarity, but I found the floor standers a bit 'boomy' with their ports. Impressive bass, but a bit much. The new B&W were 'over exciting' and seemed boosted in the highs. KEF'S vary widely within their product line. Focal did not excite me. Ah the Revel's: seemingly underwhelming until you just keep listening, and then they grow and grow on you. I mean the Studio's, which can be found used for close you our price range. Great imaging, no fatigue, and the treble is adjustable if you need. I have moved up to the Salons, as I have a large room and they 'fill the air' much better. I always believe a good sub helps,,,REL in my case. Can't return a used speaker, but I found mine local used, so auditioned on the same day as several others in store. Harbeth - I want to hear these. Well reviewed speakers are not hard to sell if you want to move on later...lower end harder I think, as are fringe brands. and I know nothing as Shultz would say about the Fritz or Salk. Finally, silver wires in my system were not a good match; they added harshness or brightness. I now use Audience AU24 SX interconnects and speaker wires in one system, and Au24 SX interconnects with homemade 8 gauge copper speaker wires in the other ( long runs). The Audience stuff is smooth sounding, which is great synergy for my SS equipment (Audionet :) and Mola Mola. My other speakers are B&W 802N's and I got them used three years ago for $4100. The are nice, less overly bright than the newer ones, and a great deal at 4k. But I like the Revels better. Good luck! Ken |
@mesch Speakers are imminent. I tried 20" stands yesterday for a short time, but since I was not having much of a problem with the bookshelves anyway, whatever improvement there was — was hard to notice. I will check again when I have time to really go back and forth. @fastfreight (Ken) You mention the Proacs a bit 'boomy' with their ports - same with Focals, but plugging the ports cleaned that right up. Did you try that? I have no plans to buy B&W in my price class. The Revels interest me. Did you know they're owned by Samsung now? "Not that there's anything wrong with that," to wax Seinfeldian. |
I’ve heard KEF R3s and those are very solid contenders in the small but extended monitor camp for me. I do currently run KEF ls50s in one room (with sub). Lots of leading edge attack and dynamics especially for the size....not the easiest on the ear at first, but really grabs and holds your attention.....very impressive within their limits once things get dialed in. I run them off Bel Canto ref1000m Class D amps (500w/ch to 8 ohms), same as my big Ohms and others. |
@decooney @hilde45 the Quickies are up and running today and I think they are a fabulous match.Part of that is the tube compliment - Baldwin input,Gold Lions for both driver tubes and KT88s.Warm and flowing.No sharp transients but who cares when I can clearly hear the tone and substance(realness?).Bass is not taut but is dimen tional and palpable.Digital glare would pop up from time to time but wouldn't linger for more than a moment.I don't want to bore anyone with a long list of tracks but flute,brass,strings,reeds,piano,male and female vocals were all played today.Good quality and bad.This is also the first time I paired them up with the MicroZOTL2.The Quickies seemed to have more authority than I recall.Anyways hilde,this is just an opinion you can file away while you go on with your search. decooney tomorrow I will try either EL34s or KT 150s out of curiosity,those are all I have.I will mention one song that I'm feeling warm and fuzzy about - Janis Joplin crooning Summertime.That will make your ears bleed on a bright system :-)Just gorgeous. |
@jtcf I learned I could bias KT150s between 40 to 55ma to produce a different type of sound stage fore/aft on my own QS mono 120 amps. Variation in tone from softer to brighter presents itself notably. If one did not know any better you would think you were listening to slightly different speakers with lower bias settings on output tubes. + @hilde45 Might be worth noting and trying different bias levels as both of you guys are demoing different speakers and cables with the QS mono tube amps. |
@hilde45, @jtcf Well, yes it does on the KT150s with a spread of 15ma, and not as noticeable a change with only at 5ma spread. You’d need a multi-meter to use with pin jacks for manual setting. I see pin jacks on the Mid Monos, not on the Mono 60s. For Mono 60s you could set LED to go out and compare that to when it’s super bright. Best to check with Mike Sanders on that. |
@helomec @helomec, did you audition the older "XT" or latest "XTi" version? Updates for the XTI version mention no tweeter or crossover changes, but I’m suspect. The woofer surrounds in the new XTi version are noted as upgraded and "stiffer". I’ve heard the older 60XT many times, and own the smaller ML40XT for another setup, and they are not overly bright, fairly neutral in fact. As noted before, found a spike on the response graph between 10k-15khz. Still kinda wondering if there was a change in material used in the AMT diaphragm or crossover with the new XTI version...no proof, just curious. |