jafant, It's interesting to think about what an ideal location for a retailer might be. 40 years ago I bet a pretty high percentage of people walking into Audio Consultants were people who lived in the neighborhood. I bet now almost none of them are. Certainly not the ones buying the expensive stuff. I bet they're mostly taking special trips to the store and it makes almost no difference where the store is as long as it's in the greater Chicagoland area. I was just poking around and F1 audio is moving to just south of where the Libertyville Audio Consultants was located on the same street. They'll be in a shopping center kitty corner to a former United Audio/Tweeter. There must be some demand around here. The only thing in the area that interests me is the SS3 in Libertyville on audiogon. I don't need it, can't justify it, won't buy it, but I want it.
Thiel Owners
Guys-
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
I just scored a sweet pair of CS 2.4SE loudspeakers. Anyone else currently or previously owned this model?
Owners of the CS 2.4 or CS 2.7 are free to chime in as well. Thiel are excellent w/ both tubed or solid-state gear!
Keep me posted & Happy Listening!
13,628 responses Add your response
George - I am aware of the veil imparted by the EQ, and also the magnificence of the 40Hz and especially the 20Hz bass boost. I am investigating alternatives to the EQ, since it has always been considered a mixed blessing, and is inherently limited in its audiophile values, is un-repairable in its present parts list. I've spoken with Joe who used to make the Golden Flutes for the early Thiel 3s. Hmmm. |
Hi Guys - a report from the trenches. This week I have received my CS1.5s and 3.5s with EQ plus an Adcom 5300 amp. Thank you forum for providing these units for the hotrod garage! My setup is getting fairly flush, allowing comparison between various products with various sources and amplification changes via throwing a few switches. Also, I'm accumulating measurement data with FuzzMeasure to correlate what I'm hearing with detailed data. And add the decades of reviewer and user experience and your long-term observations and opinions, plus my recollections of how and why various developments occurred . . . the picture is getting much clearer. Today's fun was hooking up the 3.5s I picked up yesterday from Harry Lavo. What a trip; I haven't heard those in decades. I get it. You 3.5 guys saved me from dismissing them as obsolete due to replacement driver hassles. Rob and l are actively finding optimum drivers to take the 3.5 into the future. That 20 cycle sealed bass is stunning with realism and immediacy. The 3.5 was the last product designed before CNC machining and all-MDF construction. I'll do the measurements, but my stethoscope says the walls are much quieter than the newer products. Their 1-1/8" particleboard is nearly double the stiffness of 1" MDF and the spans are smaller than later bass reflex cabinets plus the internal bracing is end-grain spruce, which is quite effective. CNC manufacturing dictated gravitation toward one material (1"mdf) including shelf braces. This week the EQ and its schematic are going to my tech for upgrade analysis. Anyhow, I'm loving the 3.5s and plan to tackle them after the 1.5s which are simpler as a sandbox. |
jon_5912 I have been reading stories about the rent/tenant situation around the greater Chicago area lately. That city is following the trends found in California and NYC currently. It appears that small businesses simply cannot or will not pay those highly inflated prices. Sad for Consumers and Patrons within the (3) markets. Happy listening! |
| Post removed |
I can't believe Audio Consultants is going away completely. They had 4 stores in the area only 2 or 3 years ago. I live about 10 minutes from where the Libertyville store was and that's where I've bought much of my stuff over the years. I'm in my early forties and it's amazing how much audio has changed just since I've been following it since the nineties. I'm glad I got good quality stuff before the audio world got this bad. |
The state of high end audio as far as local stores is really sad. Not only have the number of dealers declined, but to me it seems that the ones that are not all that great and are still in business stick out more. Many have also gone to cheaper rents in industrial parks with a policy of appointments vs. regular business hours. Some of those are in quarters which don't have the capacity for as many listening rooms (and many also do more custom audio and home theater installations vs. deal in strictly equipment) as what many are accustomed to. There seems to be more vendors that sell consumer direct and regional audio shows have increased to allow consumers to hear things they would otherwise not have an opportunity to do. Some of those venues make it a bit more difficult to get a good audition (unless one stays at the venue and arranges an after hours session). It's just the way it is. |
andy2 IMO, the driving factor is the cost involved to reach the top of a two-channel system. My five grandchildren have excellent two-channel systems, and all have chosen to avoid streaming of classical music. Their main objections to upgrading from "excellent' to "superlative" are (to them) the exorbitant costs. All five spin Redbook CDs on Bryston players and electronics and have speakers ranging from B&Ws to Bryston Mini Ts. (I'm trying to persuade them to go for some 2.3s or 2.4s; however , they're contented with what they have. All had "splurged" on their systems, and disposable income is now being socked away for their children's college funds. Just a thought. |
jazzman - thank you for the news; sad but grounded in the facts of our times. Simon, and by extension the whole Audio Consultants organization, was a dream come true. I believe that if the marketplace were filled with retailers of his caliber, our marketplace would be far healthier and maybe even vibrant. It may interest this group that when New Thiel assembled its first team including National Sales Manager Steve DeFuria, among his first moves was to re-enlist some core, respected retailers to re-focus Thiel in the marketplace. Audio Consultants was his first approach and acceptance, and they would have been a king-pin if New Thiel had stayed on its stated course of being true to Jim's vision. I don't have any figures, but I suspect that Audio Consultants may have been Thiel's top-selling dealer of all time. |
I am not sure why but high-end audio is a pretty tough business. I think partly because the younger generation does not care much of "sound quality". Actually it’s hard for me to strike a conversation regarding high-end audio with anyone since I find most people are not really into it either. For most people as long as there are some music playing from a pair of speakers, they’d be fine. I guess I belong to a dying breed. I tend to be rather particular about my system. |
It's in the air that Tomthiel is about to design some amazing upgrade even for the CS 3.6, I really can't wait to realize how much better they can sound. I consider the CS 3.6 a sort of very well sounding loudspeakers and very hard or impossible to beat at its original retail price so I wonder what is going to happen with this upcoming Tomthiel touch up?Keep studying Tom, the Thiel renaissance is in your hands. All we together will make Thiel never die. |
Rules - I like the term "time coincidence" as less confusing.Also note that the term of art 'minimum phase' includes the least possible, given all constraints. Note also that the phase lead vs lag in crossover regions does completely cancel each other to net zero. Bass tuning does not have that counteracting slope, so bass phase leads and lags with its resonant behavior. DSP can do stuff, no doubt, but with its own consequences. Unsound - IF there were a boutique company refurbishing classic Thiel speakers, I think the CS2 would be a prime candidate. Let's spin a little: There were 5500 pairs made, built like little tanks, available for short money. One might probably insert CS2.2 drivers (as successors are developed) with necessary XO mods, or 3.5 tweeters and/or midranges. Solveable. With today's tools, such as SpectraFoo and Klippel, a more robust anti-diffraction solution could be developed to replace the 1/2" MDF grille with perhaps a 1" equivalent like the CS1.5 AND the 04a rubber elastomer strips could be increased for very effective coupling. The CS2 has 6-9s coils and wire and styrene ultra bypasses around 1uF styrene bypasses for plenty of salvageable XO value. With my developing 'controlled wave-launch' baffle / grille technology, I am confident we could get class-leading performance. The necessary ingredients are not in the design or technology departments, they are in the youthful vigor department - need of the right team to pull off the ongoing project. I'm working on that. If you or anybody has a pair of CS2s, I hereby offer DIY coaching to hot-rod them. |
@tomthiel. Too bad about the CS 2's. From time to time I see reasonably nice examples being offered for sale for about a couple of hundred bucks. Shari once told me that they were Thiel's most reliable product. The sensitivity being a fairly reasonable 87 dB is enhanced with a very smooth (and fairly kind load for Thiel's) 6 Ohm nominal / 5 Ohm minimum impedance. All in all easy to drive. This and bass that drops cleanly to below 40 Hz. Other than the trick baffle/grill (which perhaps fortunately is a bit difficult to remove) it seems like a rather simple straightforward design of rather exceptional execution, that could be easily maintained for a long time. And no need for stands!, ha. All told at present prices these might be the best used speaker values currently available. These could make for great entry into the hobby, gift setup, charitable contribution, etc.. I'm sure many of these were sold. It almost becomes a social consideration as to whether or not to let these go to waste. Lest I mislead anyone about the ease of powering them, let me say that while from a technical perspective they are very accommodating, sonically they can be more discriminating.
|
Ok, let's try to keep the concepts clear. Time coherence is different from phase coherence and obtained differently. Thiel speakers are time coherent from an 8' distance as the drivers are set back in the baffle and the sound needs to travel some distance to fully integrate. In my measurements, I obtained time coherence within a few mm. at 8 ft among the drivers excluding room reflections by using freq dependent windowing. Phase coherence in Thiel speakers is at best minimum phase, which means there is a phase shift that is measurable. The first order xo filters and the drivers have a minimum phase effect. This minimum phase effect can be reduced with dsp and other cancellation methods and linear phase can be approached above 100 hz. As Tom has warned, the preringing can become an audible problem so pick your imperfection. Andy, if your point is that all speakers have some phase shift dependent on the frequency, there is argument. Thiel specifies it to be within 14 degrees which is considerably better then most alternatives. With dsp, the phase shift can be further improved if desired at the expense of potential preringing, although this effect can be mitigated to some degree with additional filters. |
Beetle - Stereophile's next publisher after Larry Archibald did not tolerate the editor producing content that put their major advertisers in dim light. Andy - Design intent is 8' minimum distance. Farther away yields larger listening window. Jon - power response is the energy dispersed through the whole room, which affects overall tonal balance, especially with phase coherent systems where reflected energy begins at the speaker as coherent waveforms. Robert - I like the tenor of your observations. Keep it up. As you all know, I am taking on the 3.5 after the 1.5. Both models are from the golden era and both sold more units to more loyal customers than any other products (the CS2 also fits that description, but its actualized design limitations and lack of parts takes it out.) My 1.5s are on their way. I'm looking for a pair of 3.5s to borrow or buy. |
With the wealth of knowledge, experience and appreciation of the experience of music on this site, especially Unsound, of course Tom Thiel and many others, I am well on my way to an upgraded system with the relatively recent addition of 3.5s to my 2.2s. For serious listening beginning last month I can now alternate them on my new vintage B & K m200s with 400w/4 ohms, but still need to use my old integrated (80w/4 ohms) as a pre for now. They are in different similarly sized rooms with different orientations, each opening to another room and likely a 2 or 4 AWG discrepancy in speaker cables and several feet of length per pair, so any comparisons between the 2 must only be taken as preliminary observations. The additional power really made the 2.2s shine in every way possible, not news to (almost) everyone on this site. My long held view that they were a very slight bit bass shy unless played loud was completely wrong, absolutely present for the mid bass with the 400w, somewhat more than the 3.5s even, but not quite as well defined. What was missing was the sub bass that one feels with the 3.5s. Outside of the higher frequencies, the 3.5s have a bit more of almost everything, especially soundstage and depth, and are easier to drive. Love them both, they are more alike than not, and could never part with either because each gives a slightly different experience of the music, but I do listen to the 3.5s more. With their present configurations one could almost make the overgeneralization that the 3.5s lean a slight bit more to the analytical side while the 2.2s to the more impressionistic, but that would likely be modified and refined if all other things were equal. As many others have said, each step up unfolds new insights and enjoyment. Funny how the more I learn the less I know, but I am enjoying the process tremendously. |
I have to eventually ask Tom if all Thiel products are optimized for far field? That is if I measure the frequency response at far field then repeat at near field, should it deviate a lot? At far field, room interactions may hide things that near field will reveal. I have seen some step responses measured by Stereophile for some of the Vandersteen speakers and John Atkinson has to move the microphone up and down to get it right otherwise the treble response will peak too much (probably due to deviation in phases). But I think it's like cheating. The listener probably will probably not know which way to move to get the best step response. Also it seems like Vandersteens may sacrifice the freq. response too much in order to achieve time phase coherent. For example, the tweeter crosses over the mid at 1KHz which think is pretty low for a tweeter and I wouldn't personally do that just to get time phase coherent. At least I don't think Thiel speakers do that. I think when you measure at far field such as 8ft, the drivers will in general integrate better because the phase a better aligned at far field vs at near field. For example, if you place a microphone at 1meter at the midrange height, the acoustic distance from the mid to the tweeter will be, let say 4in. Now if you move the microphone at 8ft distant, the relative acoustic difference will be less than 4in. It's like looking at things from far distant and your movement will probably not change the field of vision very much vs. if you're really close. |
"in-room power response" - I don't know what that means and if I ever find the time to look into it it'll probably be decades from now. I will say that maybe the biggest reason I became a Thiel guy is that the 20 year old 2 2's I got for a second system sounded so great in a far from great room. A lot of reflections will certainly lower resolution but they don't need to make the music unlistenable because it's way to bright, way to bass-heavy and dull, etc. The overall character of the sound can remain intact if the speaker allows it to. |
Soundstage (NRC lab) measures speakers at 2 m - 79”. Their CS2.4 frequency response looks *much* better than that measured by Stereophile. In fact, the 2.4 has the flattest measured response of any in their database (actually, there is a Magico model that was similarly flat). There was at least one test by JA of a Thiel (or was it a Vandy?) wherein he acknowledged the problems around measuring the speaker at only 50”. But he ignored that issue thereafter. |
Tom, you wrote: snip > A lot of the confusion revolves around magazines/reviewers not being able to measure in those real-world situations. snip > I don't buy the charts. Note they are taken at 50" and on the tweeter axis, both of which meet Stereophile's MO, but are illegitimate for the system under test. At 100" and 35" ear height, those measurements actually yield clean triangles without those false anomalies. Amen! |
Hi Tom, Actually I appreciate your timely feedback and I have said many times I have a lot of admiration for Thiel’s products. I’ve looked at a lot of Stereophile measurements it seems like there are speaker manufacturers that pursued "time phase coherence" but at too much expenses at other parameters that I think are just important. And some are using the term "time phase coherence" too loosely as a marketing gimmick than from actual engineering. Thanks again for your feedback. I was going to ask you if you would care for another theoretical discussion but my guess is you probably have had enough for one day :-) PS: As for measuring step response at 8ft, my guess is although the step response will show valid result, but the frequency response may suffer because the tweeter at 8ft distant may exhibit dips or bumps at some frequencies because the phase will not be at same say at 4ft for example. Anyway, just my 2cents. |
Andy - regarding your last paragraph on the 3.7 charts. Those charts would indeed FAIL my definitions of both "time coincidence" and "phase coherence". BUT I don't buy the charts. Note they are taken at 50" and on the tweeter axis, both of which meet Stereophile's MO, but are illegitimate for the system under test. At 100" and 35" ear height, those measurements actually yield clean triangles without those false anomalies. I am really not the guy to try to explain this stuff. It's pretty deep and complicated by real and imagined factors, and my knowledge is real, but not fluent. Here is what I can say: Jim was an engineer's engineer, and an honest mathematician and physicist. He pursued the problems to their root causes and engineered thorough solutions. I have only conversational knowledge of what he knew to his bones. That said, I was in the lab every day for 20 years and helped devise and implement the test set-ups and cross-checks. For frequencies lower than our chamber could reliably measure (100 Hz±) we had a roof system (100'x 500' flat roof) which we correlated with both straight and ground-plane techniques. It is germane that our test system included impulses for step responses at 1/3 octave intervals from 10Hz to 30kHz. Thiel speakers pass those pulses from bottom to top, including through the crossover regions. I don't know of a more stringent test for coherence, and to my knowledge, all speakers from the 03 in 1977 meet that requirement. |
Unsound - right on. Dunlavy took them to task and Vandersteen chided in an interview. Thiel chose to not respond as a policy, but discussed it with John. The biggest
problem with them is their (usually) 50" mic distance, which does not
allow the wavefront to integrate, and then JA reading in to the ragged scan, which was caused by the technique, not the speaker. They published excess phase charts on older models, which are near zero, and even at 20kHz, they drift less than
10°. In our development measurements, all models (in my time, and
probably later) fell within that 10° from minimum, except the CS5, which
was <5° (plus Jim published a time delay spec which I remember being in
the microseconds.) Andy - I don't remember using "phase coincidence" or "time coherent", since I find both terms confusing. The separate drivers are placed in 3-D space to sum properly when listening at 35"±~4" and greater than 8', optimized for 3M / 10'. That is a stated constraint, which we believed to be reasonable for real people in real listening situations. A lot of the confusion revolves around magazines/reviewers not being able to measure in those real-world situations. Here's the Stereophile measurements of the CS1.5: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs15-measurements Regarding Vandersteen, I plead ignorance of any particulars. Richard didn't go places that were unfriendly. He knew the pitfalls of those measurements and had plenty of sales to side-step that playing field, although he and JA were on the best of terms. From everything I have read, he was pursuing the same expression of minimum phase as Thiel. |
While I commend Stereophile for actually measuring some of the gear they review.The discussion is not really about Stereophile measurements but more about the underlying meaning of "time coherent" or "phase coincidence" (Tom terminology). My argument is a perfect "phase coincidence" is not physically realizable in real world environment irrespective of measurements. I think you can have a speaker that is "phase coincident" but only within a certain frequency range, NOT from 0 - 20KHz. Even with a speaker that only has one driver, it will have different phase at different frequency, and yes it will have a proper step response, but based on Tom strict definition then it is not "phase coincident" at least not at all frequencies. I am not criticizing Thiel products in anyway, it just seems that Tom was using an argument that is a bit unreasonable. Tom, If you look at Stereophile measurement of the Thiel CS3.7 here: https://www.stereophile.com/content/thiel-cs37-loudspeaker-measurements You can see there is a rather pronounce peak on top of the step response which means the tweeter phase is not well aligned with the rest of the frequency range, otherwise there would not be such pronounced peak. Again I don't mean to criticize here but more like trying to understand your definition of the term "phase coincidence". You definitely threw a curve ball into the conversation :-) It looks to me the tweeter phase is deviating from the frequency cross over point between the mid and the tweeter. John Atkinson would call this "phase coherent" and I would too. But then it appears that from your above post, you would disagree. If that is the case then it would imply the CS3.7 does not meet your criteria as "time coherent". |
While I commend Stereophile for actually measuring some of the gear they review. Some of their published measurements are from less than ideal procedures. In particular their speaker measurements and especially those pertaining to time. Ideally they would use anechoic measurements and do them from a distance consistent with manufacturers recommended listening distances. John Dunlavy took them to task for their measurement protocols. |
Atkinson and others have hijacked "coherence" to include the smooth phase transitions in non-coincident systems with large phase shift - as long as the phase transitions are smooth, some call it phase coherentThat is certainly what I understand as one class of "phase coherence". Thiel, Vandersteen and many physicists reserve the term "coherence" to mean that the phase response remains minimum, ie. it does not depart from flat.I look at some of Vandersteen designs and I am not sure how he could achieve that. A good measure is "excess phase" approaching zero.Yes, in the strictest of the definition, that is true. But in reality, I am not sure if any speakers can meet that definition but I could be wrong since I have not seen all the designs out there. The latter Thiel speakers use coax drivers so maybe "time coherence" can be achieved without excess phase on the tweeter as it approaches 20KHz. In the case of Vandersteens, he uses conventional drivers with the tweeters offset from the midrange so I am not sure how he could do that without some amount of excess phase. So it's possible he could be sacrificing "smooth phase transition" at the expense of the tweeter excess phase? I've seen John Atkinson measurement of the CS2.4 step response, and the peak on the step response does suggest that the tweeter response as it approaches 20KHz may not meet that "strictest of definition" as you pointed above. If a speaker meets the "strictest of definition" of "phase coincidence" , then the step response should be "smooth" on top of the step response where there lies the tweeter phase vs. the rest of the frequency (for example below the tweeter cross over point). For example, if you take the phase at the cross-over point to be the reference, the tweeter phase will always deviate from that reference as it approaches 20KHz and therefore the speaker does not meet your claim of "phase coincidence" and therefore by definition, the tweeter response will not be "phase coincident" with the rest of the frequencies. And of course, some speakers are the worse offenders than others with this respect. |
George - I always wonder whether my comments are clarifying or just muddy the waters darker. My survey of the web suggests that there are strongly held but contrary opinions on the subject. I, as you might guess, have paid attention from various angles including music playback and record production. I take comfort that my opinions align with the best of the bunch, those recordings that play well on all systems. Here's a link to a good explanation of the territory. It demonstrates the 'stealth phantom' of linear phase filters, whether they are analog or digital. https://www.audiomasterclass.com/newsletter/the-difference-between-minimum-phase-and-linear-phase-eq... |
I also find the topic of phase fascinating, including the auditory neurology and learning that helps us hear, as I have expounded on this thread. There are some confusing terms. Time alignment is a great term, but was trademarked by Ed Long around 1980, which is weird. Time coincident means the same thing, and I recommend it. Time coherence merges two concepts, leading to confusion. Also, Atkinson and others have hijacked "coherence" to include the smooth phase transitions in non-coincident systems with large phase shift - as long as the phase transitions are smooth, some call it phase coherent. Thiel, Vandersteen and many physicists reserve the term "coherence" to mean that the phase response remains minimum, ie. it does not depart from flat. A good measure is "excess phase" approaching zero. When terminology is scrambled, concepts are harder to define. |
"Since if a speaker can produce a step response correctly, therefore it is time-phase coherent, and therefore it must be "good" - is not something I hear him saying. He does say that "all else being equal, phase coherent speakers tend to produce exceptional imaging". (My semi-quote)Yes, I think that's what he said. I may have mistaken "exceptional imaging" for what he felt as "good". I think I've read the same article that you read and he did say "exceptional imaging". It's been awhile since I've read the article (and I can't seem to find it anymore), but I also believed he said something to the extent "if everything else has been taken care off", that is if a speaker was well designed in other regards, then "time-coherence" may have an advantage of providing "exceptional image". Anyway, what I will write probably won't be based on my personal opinions but more based what I've seen from simulations with actual real world data. Others will have to draw their own conclusions. I only used John Atkinson's statement as an "introduction", but I will try to stay clear of using my own subjectivity. I think that phase coherence (as an objective or success) increases the difficulty of making a good speaker by a large multiple, and that many attempts fail in many ways, including Thiel's attempts.I agree that time-coherence is not easy and that's why besides Vandersteens, I don't know of anyone else. I have seen a few measurements from Stereophile done by John Atkinson and he did question the validity of some of the claims of being time-coherent (not Thiel though). My document is not meant to be a vehicle for judging anyone's work, but it is meant to discuss "time coherence" in a objective way with actual simulation using real measured data (when possible), plots and graphs, and as I said, I will not include any of my subjective opinions. And for whatever reasons, this topic is weirdly fascinating to me, and I probably won't sleep well until I put the document together :-) |
Andy - I'm interested in learning of your work and look forward to reading more on your thread. As an observation of your opening statement, I read what seems like a false-start. I have followed John Atkinson's reviews, observations and attitudes with great interest since meeting him in the 1980s. Your semi-quote: "Since if a speaker can produce a step response correctly, therefore it is time-phase coherent, and therefore it must be "good" - is not something I hear him saying. He does say that "all else being equal, phase coherent speakers tend to produce exceptional imaging". (My semi-quote). I state and know that Jim would agree and think that John would agree that phase coherence (however measured) does not produce a "good speaker". I think that phase coherence (as an objective or success) increases the difficulty of making a good speaker by a large multiple, and that many attempts fail in many ways, including Thiel's attempts. I look forward to your posts in your coherence thread and this one. Tom |
jafant - thanks so much for your kind comments (and thanks so much for your great contributions to this thread). I noticed I had a few other comments on my system page (which I added not that long ago - and just includes the main system, I have other systems including speakers from Selah Audio, B&W, Ohm and GR Research and electronics in those secondary systems from Hegel, Mivera, NuPrime, etc.) and I have added a pic that shows a bit more of the room where the main system resides. I've also added some comments about what electronics are in the main system. Don't post often as some threads are filled with comments not conducive to providing helpful information derived from actual experience (I do find some of it almost humorous and can't even imagine anyone even put any credence in someone who has no actual first hand exposure to something - this is a great thread where we have some wonderful expertise from various individuals - thank you all). |
For those who are interest in a more detail discussions of first order/time phase coherent design, I have just created a thread specific to this subject. I actually have simulations, plots, graphs and not just subjective philosophical rubbish :-). Personally I find it's a fascinating subject and hopefully I'll post some of my findings. Just be warned, some of my findings may go against your belief (but not too much). Tom may not like what I will say but ultimately we need to search for the truth. Vincent van Gogh tried to cut his ears off but I don't think he found any. Hopefully I won't cut anything off :-) |
Some components and speakers are also just more sensitive to changes. I used to make virtually all of my cables (I probably have some of them in back-up systems and I have made them for others - didn't set out to do it but after they heard it, I agreed to do it at cost of materials). Sometimes I'd make something and marvel at the difference it made in one system and then struggle to figure out why there was almost no difference in another. Much of course depends on the room as well (it is so often the most overlooked thing). I've had a one-third octave RTA for many years (and also now that computers have come so far I have Audio Tools on the Phone and iPads along with a calibrated mic as well as Windows 10 music servers in other systems with REW and a USB mic) and doing changes/movements in mine and other systems has helped me evaluate things better. Of course everyone has different tastes and priorities as well (and there's nothing wrong with that). |
