Right now the images are a little too low,as if the musicians are all seated at my level.If I play with toe in they become taller and the soundstage wider.One of these days I'll spend the time to readjust, but the speakers are so heavy.I prefer the images as if they are raised up a bit on a stage.
- ...
- 61 posts total
Iam too dumb, so I got my speakers built by a gentleman who was well regarded for his speaker builds. It was clearly conveyed that my room was small at 11 x 16.5 feet. And that it will be a near field setup with an equilateral triangle of 8.5 ft with the tweeters and ears. And i like the vocals to be at a realistic human height. So from what i understand, the crossover was built to give a coherent balance at the seated ear position. So even though the speakers are big 3 ways, I find them a joy to listen to, with very life like height and massive width. Whereas my other speakers, PMC twenty 26, sound disjointed like 3 different drivers doing their own thing at my same listening position. |
when someone calls me out for being on the wrong track, i take them seriously. part of which includes trying to understand where they are coming from and see what i can learn. so i looked at your previous posting history and found this description of some of your systems. you seem to have very strongly expressed viewpoints. yet looking at this, i think that our viewpoints for what is high level performance are not aligned, our expectations for quality performance are not at the same level. yet if you are happy and enjoying your path then more power to you. i wish you the best. i was a fan of SACD multi-channel myself back 20 years ago. i built a dedicated room for 5.1 SACD listening at the highest levels. https://www.audiogon.com/systems/615 what i discovered was that my 2 channel smoked it. the media for 2 channel was so much better that the technical advantages of 5.1 could not surpass it. my 2 channel out ’multi-channeled’ the multi-channel. i still own 1000 SACD multi-channel discs. part of it was vinyl verses digital. the vinyl was much better, even though i had state of the art digital. so i removed the rear channels and surround gear from my 2 channel room and re-tasked those funds to reel to reel tape decks. that was in 2008. i always had a separate home theater room in my home with multi-channel surround supporting movies. over the years it was improved as technology advanced. now it’s fairly high level with the Trinnov, 9.3.6 Revel surround speakers and 3 Funk Audio subwoofers. i only do movies there. certainly music videos which take full advantage of Dolby Atmos can be entertaining, but my 2 channel is far superior for music only. maybe also explain your logic of how the Trinnov is not a high level processor. that does not sound right to me. |
@mikelavigne , While I appreciate the research you did on some streamer/dac i had 3 years ago, my digital end has gotten upgraded just a bit since then. I still don't believe in spending an arm and a leg on a streamer/dac, but, whatever, we'll save that for a different discussion. I also don't believe in sitting around with 1 pair of stereo speakers thinking i've got it made either. Hence, i own more than one. Here's my current list of gear and i could put it up against whatever you've got. My multichannel gear runs circles around (in execution) over all my 2 channel gear, which costs way more. I have a pretty good feeling that it will run circles around whatever 2 channel gear you've got as well. It is just a limitation of your 90 year old fossilized stereo/channel based audio, which you may understand after you figure out how to execute multichannel/3D object based audio better. 2 channel, Room 1 Speaker#1: TAD-E1TX Multichannel Atmos, Room 2 Multichannel 5.4.4: If you want a more objective discussion, start here with this discussion from audioholics...It may give you a better idea. |
- 61 posts total