I knew there was one brand available in Dallas that I was forgetting, that being the ProAc, and I'm grateful to be reminded of that. From what I've read, and now see from the responses above, the ProAc and the Sonus Faber appear to be the most obvious speakers to really audition closely. But I'm also open to other ideas, if there are any out there, and I'll give some time to the Audio Physic as well.
I suppose it is possible that my ears are just very sensitive to high frequencies. Frankly, I find that most high end systems I've heard seem too bright, and that's been a bugaboo for me since I started getting into high end gear years ago. I know that the Vandersteen "buzz" is not in that direction, which is why I was almost relieved to see Fremer's comments in Stereophile about the "too honest" highs in the Quatros. I auditioned the Quatros with my own CDs and was disappointed for that very reason. Yet I'll be the first to admit that, with certain combinations of gear and CDs, the 3a sigs sound "right there"-- very involving and exciting.
Thanks again for the comments, everybody. Look forward to others. |
In response to a couple of comments: Yes, I do have the treble control all the way down (as I did with the 2ce sigs), and, yes, I have a window in one of the side walls to my room. (Room is about 20'x17' with the speakers about 4 feet out from one of the short walls, slightly toed in.) I've got rugs on the floor and used to have fabric covered walls, now dry-wall, but no difference in sound. I'd be more concerned about the window, except that the "too honest" high problem is something I encountered in the showroom as well.
I am very interested to note that Krisjan's 3a-sig system is somewhat like the most satisfactory version of my own, but with Cary amplification, and their top end pre-amp. (As noted, I seem to be happiest with the Cary pre-amp and the ARC VT100 amp.) Perhaps I should take that as a form of advice that I should explore the Cary line further, on the amplification side, as I also consider other speakers. Sounds like we're listening to similar repertoire.
Thanks again. |
I'll look into the single driver speaker concept, and thank you for the suggestion...that's a new idea for me.
I have tilted the speakers back so that I am not in direct axis with the tweeters.
My equipment is on 2 separate circuits, the amp on one, and everything else on another, which is a dedicated circuit separate from the rest of the household current. The amp circuit has only a few lightbulbs to power, other than the amp. I have no current conditioner/treatment in place. I have isolation stands, and all of the way between me and the speakers is an area rug.
I wish I could experiment with acoustic treatment of the room, but I've got domestic issues (as many of us do). That's part of why I concluded I just needed to look for another speaker. But, to be honest, I've heard the 5's, for example, a number of times at the dealers, and I just plain don't like them, or the Quatros (also heard at the dealers). Fremer put it very well re the Quatros...they suffer from "Too Much Information" distortion--and that's how I perceive the 5's and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the 3a's. But let me emphasize again: with a certain kind of recording, I am in complete agreement that the Vandersteens sound superb. However, too much of what I listen to does not fit into that mold...depending, in part, on what's driving the speakers. And, along those lines, I think the most interesting advice (other than to try new speakers, which I will do) is to look further into the Cary direction. As mentioned, the Cary pre-amp has been the best addition to the system that I've made, in terms of warming up the sound and easing the highs a bit. I don't want to lose ALL of the detail, but I want soft, easy-going highs. Maybe Cary amplification would do what I want.
Re the equalizer, I confess that I was "brought up" (if you will) in the school of thought that you put as little between the signal and the ear as possible, so I haven't really considered that direction...but if I can't resolve the issue in other ways, that is one potential solution. It would just have to be a darn fine equalizer, I guess.
You've all been very kind to write, and I appreciate it. Now I've definitely got some new ideas. If somebody has others, I'm glad to hear. |
I appreciate everybody's contribution. I've got the Cary SLP98 up and running, and with it in the system, the top end is certainly more relaxed. So I'm going to look at the speakers described, and if that doesn't work, consider some Cary amplification. |
Further report for anyone curious: I worked out a trade with a buddy and now have Harbeth M30s, at least on a temporary basis. I prefer their mids and highs to the Vandersteens, personally...lots of musical sounds, though perhaps somewhat less detail. End result is easier on these ears, nice and warm, and not as rough with the inevitably problematic recordings that come along. Still experimenting with the right electronics among those I have. Also auditioned the Scorpios (pretty good first impression, nice bottom end), the Cremonas (strange sizzle with sibilants, but otherwise very rich), and Wilson Sophias (which I mostly avoided, even though they sounded nice, because my wife said they looked like something out of Star Wars and otherwise exhibited, shall we say, extreme disinterest). Probably will spend a bit more time with the Scorpios and also found some Spendors to listen to...and ProAcs and a smaller Wilson Benesch. Would love to hear some Harbeth Super HL5's and M40's.
It's a real pain, but trying some different speakers in one's own system is really worth it, in terms of figuring out issues with the electronics, the room, and the realities of what's available. Obvious, perhaps, but something I avoided for a long time because of the hassle factor. |
Bondman - Thank you for your ideas. I've not heard any of the speakers you mentioned, and I will keep them in mind.
You're certainly correct about the ARC reputation. Two things: My LS15 was modified by Steve Huntley at Great Northern Sound. It is no longer "cool" sounding. I bought it (unmodified) 2nd hand because I wanted to try the ARC "sound" knowing that Vandersteens were often paired with ARC. In stock condition, I really disliked it. I sent it to Steve on a lark, essentially (well, he has a great reputation, and told me he thought after he was through with it, I would feel much differently about it). He was right; it was an amazing difference.
Also, with the VT 100 amp, you get quite a different sound from the 4 ohm output tap than you do from the 8 ohm. Significantly warmer.
I've enjoyed the ARC equipment--used as described--more than I expected and more than several other pieces I've tried, including 2 Cary pre-amps.
I also like the Harbeths that I'm using now, instead of the Vandersteens. I may be too lazy, at this point, to change. |
I'm happy to oblige with additional information about source material. Here are some "torture test" discs that I like very much, but that I do not favor on the Vandersteens--either at my home, or the dealer's: Delius by Barbarolli on EMI 65119; Delius V Con, etc. by Titner on Naxos 8.557242; Joseph Marx, Nature Trilogy for Orch., ASV 1137; Telemann, Orch Suites, Schneider, cpo 999994-2. The problem is in the massed strings, especially as the strings play louder. They can sound somewhat thin and edgy, and generally unpleasant (and not "real") on the Vandys. As noted, I got the best results at home with the Vandersteens coupled with the Cary SLP 2002 coupled with the ARC VT 150 MkIII (but on the 4 ohm tap...the 8 ohm tap was unpleasantly bright on almost all source material). This was using Cardas Cross or Golden Cross cable (prefer the former, frankly).
These recordings all sounded better on the Wilson Sophias and the Scorpios. They sound better, also, on the Harbeths. When I say "better", I mean the strings are warmer, generally fuller, and generally without harshness.
My reference comparison comes from having played a great deal of music (I have a degree in music) and, in the course of my travels for business, having heard some wonderful orchestras in some of the great halls we have in this country: Carnegie, Orchestra Hall in Chicago, Symphony Hall in Boston, and others. (Most of my orchestral listening has been in either Orchestra Hall or Carnegie Hall in the last 15 years.)
This has, indeed, been an interesting thread, thanks to all the considered responses. I admit that I have had an issue with "brightness", or whatever you want to call it, that has been a bear to deal with since I've been playing around with high end gear, on and off, since the mid-80s. I am coming to believe that it is possible to have too much detail in the high end, that makes some recordings sound really good, but others not so good (even though they are not necessarily bad recordings). I also completely agree that there are some recordings that are just so lousy, nothing with make them sound good.
Thanks
My next project is to listen to various of the Spendor speakers.
I |
I appreciate your thoughts, sgbaird, and, in fact, I just picked up an old ARC SP-8 for the fun of it to see what it does to the sound to go back in time, so to speak. I may well send it to Great Northern Sound for mods later. I felt that GNSC did a fine job with a my 2nd hand ARC LS-15. In the LS-15, I have some Amperex Bugle Boys, which seem nice. The Harbeths are certainly "easier" in the highs than the Vandersteens. I'm antsy to get my ARC VT100 back to see how it works with the Harbeths and my growing collection of pre-amps. I remember when those Quicksilvers came out...that was big news, and I almost got some, but ran out of money during a divorce in '89 (was I paying to much attention to my audio gear?) and lived with the same set-up after that for 10 years, happily...I know it can be done! |
Thank you for commenting, Limbic. When I did the original post, I noted my system, which includes an ARC (Audio Research) VT 100 Mk III, which is a tube amp. But I didn't SAY it was a tube amp...we get so caught up in our shorthand, you know. I agree with you (also as a musician) that tubes, whatever their irritations, do some things really right, and one of them is strings. Even though I changed from the Vandersteens to the Harbeth speakers, I'm still using the VT 100, and I haven't found anything I like better.
Now, to be honest, I have no clue what you are talking about when you say "Manger" speakers. I believe someone else mentioned that name, and I wasn't sure what it was. Can you tell me about them (off line if you wish).
Thanks |
Thanks, CMK. Actually, the Vandy's are gone, in favor of Harbeth M30s. Yes, I lost a bit of detail; however, that was in favor of musicality--to my ears, anyway. It took me months to get used to the idea of giving up on the Vandersteens, mainly because so many people said "But everybody else says they're laid back!" (though I wonder how many of those folks had actually lived with them, day in and day out--though I know a few did, and you lived with the 2's). But the person I finally listened to was the one who said "Trust your ears." I finally did, and never looked back.
In fairness to Vandys 2's and 3a's, compared to a lot of speakers, they are less aggressive. (I don't feel quite that way about the Quattros.) They just weren't "less aggressive" enough, for my ears.
Reproduction of high frequency information is one of the toughest duties of stereo gear. I happen to be very sensitive to that area, for whatever reason. I used to be a musician, have an undergraduate degree in Music Theory, and played jazz, and listen to lots of classical music, and have spent a lot of time in the great concert halls of this country. This has nothing to do with not knowing how live music sounds like. It's just an ear preference/taste issue. (It also was not an electronics issue. I auditioned plenty in my home and stores. I just couldn't get the sound where I envisioned it. Now I'm a bit closer.)
I appreciate your thoughts. |
