What is it that you don't like about your speakers ?
Most people usually sing praise of what they have, be it Quad, Harbeth, Vandersteen, Magico or whatever. In another thread I already said what I didn't like about my Michael Green Audio free resonance speakers. I could add that better frequency extension wouldn't hurt, they can't fully reproduce Hellborg's custom acoustic bass guitar or Glen Moore's customized bass. Fewer complaints regarding high frequences but still. And they don't exactly disappear, though this doesn't bother me much - instruments when played live don't disappear either. Imaging could be sharper but again not bad. I expect some coloration from anything that is a box. This includes room - it is a box as well.
The tops of my dynamic speakers attract some light dust, which means that every few weeks I have to wipe them gently using a high-quality micro fibre cloth. What a bother!
On another level, this question pertains to why I’ve been through five marriages and am now trying to save my sixth.
Great and relevant post for me. I have Wilson Maxx 2's as my primary speakers, and also Wilson Watt Puppy's that I like to put into play from time to time.
The problem with the Wilsons is that they are extremely sensitive to placement, and a real pain in the butt to dial in, especially the Maxx 2's which are about 450 lbs each. Sooo hard to get them adjusted into that "sweet" spot, due to the size and weight issue.
I cannot figure out how I'm getting imaging behind me. With just the four piece set in front of me. At first I thought I was somehow getting something through the Martin Logan Descent subs , "One is to my side" But what I'm getting are mids to high frequencies mainly. In one song I kept hearing a door close about 6 feet behind me. There is no door behind me, just 15 more feet of geometric freestanding space with a table. Freaky! I need more testing equipment.
I am very satisfied with my Paradigm Studio 100 Reference speakers, but they aren't Paradigm Concept 4F's. Would love to have a pair but at $40K for a pair, I doubt that will happen. Unless of course, I win the lottery.
Mine tell it like it is: crap sounds like crap, and great stuff sounds terrific. ( you thought I was gonna say"great") Midrange is a bit too recessed too.
trelja, I see. I had passing thoughts of adding second system but quickly abandoned this idea and decided to concentrate on one set-up. Not only because of limited funds, another room is not big enough with a lot of furniture, no good sound can really be achieved. Anyone has big Soundlabs ?
shadorne, whatever drawbacks Michael Green free resonance speakers have, they sufficiently convey the essense of music, and that's the most important thing. As always, source, electronics and cables are all important. Yes, I wouldn't mind Lansche/Ypsilon set-up.
For 30 years, my speakers had deficiencies so I understand why you are not fully satisfied with your Michael Green speakers. You seem to think box speakers must necessarily be colored and sound like a box. In fact I am surprised you are willing to stick with your speakers, as you genuinely seem interest in high fidelity.
Over the years my problems were boomy bass and then as I progressed the speakers became more accurate but lacked extension to the ultra LF.
I am happy now. Anyone like Inna that says speakers must necessarily be a compromise are simply justifying mediocrity in a major aspect of their setup.
@inna That's the relevant question, why so many loudspeakers? I've often kept 2 - 3 systems going. It's part of the sickness of this hobby, and both wonderful and stupid, at the same time.
I do drive the Quads with my Jadis amplifiers, and the 3 of them provide different results. But I also use my Dynacos and
Quicksilvers. Have had 3 pairs of AtmaSphere M60s and 1 S30 in the
past. Supposedly, a match made in heaven. So at some point, I
anticipate giving the Atmas another try.
While I like all of the listed loudspeakers to various degrees, you're right, I like the Quads and Frieds best. If the day came where I couldn't stockpile gear, and had to choose to live with a single component for each part of a single system, I'd end up with the Jadis DA60 driving the Quads.
Like everything in this world, components have strengths and weaknesses. I believe someone with an open mind, heart, and ears can evaluate the gear they own in kind. Interesting how few complaints folks have thrown out there. Especially, in light of how many components get listed on this site
Sound quality is so good I cant stop dancing about if on you can not do anything but enjoy music, conversation, reading etc all near impossible since the music is just so engaging.
How can you be 100% sure it's really the speakers producing the sound/effect that you don't like so much?
+1 The system needs to be considered as a whole (an organism if you will). We are (understandable and easier to do so) quick to attribute to whichever component or cable or tweak we are working on...but it's an expression of the entire system.
((((The only thing I would have RV change about the Treo CTs is the terminal strip.)))
For many years we have discussed this. I hit him with the same thing. He said to do the experiment yourself and listen. So I did Try Big spades Try Little spades Try Barrier strip Try Big Binding posts I tried it........ It's a no-brainer experiment Small spades / Barrier strip wins and is way more transparent, clear and precise also Cardas Binding Posts work well. JohnnyR Audio Connection
The only thing I would have RV change about the Treo CTs is the terminal strip. I would place it slightly higher on the back of the cabinet so there would be a bit more room for speaker cables and I would redesign the terminals to accept full size spades.
You guys are not talking about your speakers' performance. I don't like the scratches on my speakers' cabinets either. trelja, do you drive your Quads with Jadis ? Why so many speakers, it appears that you really like only Quads and Fried Valhalla ?
@inna, FANTASTIC topic. Most people do expound the positives of their components. But perfection doesn’t exist in this realm, or in life.
Some analysis of the speakers I currently own: Quad ESL57: More hard to fault the Quads than any speakers I’ve encountered, as they just sound SOOO much more like real life than the rest of the speaker world. Most high-end audio sounds too forward or hard, some components go too far the other way to avoid it. Yet the original Quads sound neither too hard nor too soft, too bright nor too dull, too forward nor too reticent, too warm nor too cold, and implement something closer to the perfection everyone seeks than any other. But there’s the lack of the bottom octave, and blow you back sort of bass. The bass is of higher quality than ported and sealed speakers, but I often crave getting kicked in the stomach, and the Quads could never, ever, ever do that. Funny, I listen loud, 95dB at the chair, and they do that without issue
Fried Valhalla System: Satellites with true Transmission Line (TL) loaded midrange, sitting on true TL 10" subwoofers. An almost faultless design that demonstrates while true TL produces probably the second best bass next to my friend Bill Legall’s correctly implemented 18" Ohm Walsh A driver, only in comparison to the Quads do you notice a cone driver cannot capture the true essence of natural sound and reality, as well as how very far away they are. Living with the gold standard makes me aware of the wrong tonality of these and everything else. Hearing true TL, you realize it’s far more (as Bud knew) important on the midrange than the woofer. And after hearing a series crossover (which Bud knew was even more important than TL), when it comes to coherence, virtually every loudspeaker on the market implements parallel crossovers that fail to seamlessly integrate their multiple drivers
Fried Studio V: A slight step back from the Valhalla System, implementing the drivers in a single tower cabinet, yet superior to most of what you encounter in the current market. Despite being a 3 way, the true TL loaded 8" woofer can only go so low. And once again, after you hear the Quads, everything else, no matter how good, lacks that utter sense of naturalness
Fried A/6: Line Tunnel in a stuffed ported loudspeaker, made to emulate a transmission line, and also used by companies like Von Schweikert. This low-cost bass loading, while simple, effective, and affordable, can come off a bit unexciting and underwhelming. The overall sound of the speaker further tends to the more relaxed and liquid side, and missing extension on both ends of the sonic spectrum. Took me quite a long time to come to grips with, and actually enjoy
Coincident Digital Master w/Troubass subwoofers: Modifications - upgraded them to ScanSpeak Revelator tweeter, had my friend Bill Legall damp the cabinets and rebuild the 8" Seas polypropylene midwoofer to greatly open up the sound. After hearing electrostatic and true TL bass and midrange, a ported speaker never sounds correct, due to realizing how much distortion it produces. Though almost universal today, ported speakers sound shockingly dirty in comparison to other designs. That 8" Seas polypropylene midwoofer in the satellite modules produces an incredibly "plastic" sound in comparison to the Quads and paper drivers, in general. Also, Coincidents never posses their advertised sensitivity, and sound best with at least a decent amount of power
A few other loudspeakers I’ve previously had: Consonance M15 horn: Front loaded horns. Horn drivers have a difficult (impossible?) time integrating the horn with a traditional cone woofer, 15" in this case. The horn brings tremendous speed and clarity; large cone woofers in a vented box are the yin to that yang. Some listeners don’t seem to mind or even notice, it drives others crazy
Horning Perikles: Circumsized (whizzer cone removed) Lowther driver with dual 12" woofers firing into an adjustable back-loaded horn (the kind people forget about when they talk horns) configuration, and a traditional tweeter handling the upper end. The speakers sound so great on so many levels, and Jeff Catalano masterfully demonstrates them at shows. But for the life of me, they refused to image in my room
Merlin VSM: Next to the Vandersteen 2 and Wilson WATT/Puppy, probably THE speaker that represents high-end audio. With most components, Merlins tend to sound lean, and with some, even hard. Without the BAM, you have more or less a minimonitor. With it, what some consider phantom low frequencies. I’ve heard folks rip it to whatever degree, but not until I owned them did I come to understand those sentiments. Still, will probably buy another pair at some point
Tidal Piano: Just too clean a design. Most often, uninteresting. On their worst days, the hardness and lack of warmth and beauty of the ceramic drivers left me unconsciously digging my fingernails into the chair
Nothing to fault with my speakers in terms of sound except they are a bit awkward to move - extreme weight, magnolia burr gloss finish and elliptical shape contribute to the moving challenge even for piano movers.
My current speakers are very unforgiving with bad source material. I wish they were more like Double Impacts or Audio Note AN-E’s where even the worst recording is listenable.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
