Aleph 5 + Dunlavy 4

Thanks for the responses !

Drubin, I guess what I want to know is if A/D combo is what it should be or a little bit bass-shy, especially both KSA and PSB are known for their bass performance or too exagerated. In fact I'm not sure if I need more power. Right now my preamp points to 10-11 o'clock position in pretty loud listening leve while the previous Aleph owner pointed to 3 o'clock driving Maggies 3.6.

Sean, yes it is big change (and improvement). In fact, I like them very much. I just want to know if the bass of my previous system is too exagerated (or slow and muddy) or the current one is just right (quick and tight). Thanks for your opinion !

My cable is Audioquest midnight-2 driving by ARC LS-3B, AA DTI-PRO32, DDE V3.0 and Maratz CD-63. The roomm is about 16Wx24Lx17H. The speakers are along the short wall (not as suggested, I know) but 10.5' apart. 2.5' from the side wall, 7' form the back wall without toe-in. There is no front wall since it faces a open dinette/kitchen (15'wx22'L). The listening position iss about 11' from the center of the speakes. Is it good or any improvemnt can be made except "along the longwall" ? Thanks !

Cdma: Due to the wide horizontal ( but limited vertical ) dispersion of the mirror imaged design that the Dunlavy's use, you'll probably need to pay close attention to the primary points of reflection on the side walls AND toe the speakers in. This type of design typically works best with no toe-in, but your installation somewhat forces you to do so.

As a side note, you might be running into impedance related problems with the ARC preamp and the Aleph amp. This is discussed in another current thread and the Aleph's are specifically mentioned in terms of having problems with tube and / or passive based preamps ( for lack of a more universal term ). This is something that you might want to check into also as it could be affecting what you are hearing / the synergy between components.

Other than that, my thoughts are that your source is now the weak spot within your system in terms of electronics. I know that you probably just dumped a ton of cash on this stuff, but i can see some further expenditures coming up in the near future for you : ) Sean
>

Thanks again !
I did see Drubin's comment on impedance match !
I got a ratio of 46 = 23k/0.5k, how is it ? Maybe this number accounts for a little bit bass shy. AI L-1 or Aleph P of my once candidate won't improve this ratio. I did do something on the primary points of my back and side walls, the reflection is kinda under the controll and no toe-in is applied.

About my source, do you mean cd-63 or cd-63 plus AA gears ?
Do you think a Perpetual p3a replaceing DDE with some upsampling trick will help ?

As mentioned in that same thread, the commonly accepted "theory" is that a 1 to 10 ratio is considered "good". This would mean that a 500 ohm output impedance of a source or preamp should see an input impedance ( from preamp or power amp ) of at least 5000 ohms. Anything above that ratio is simply icing on the cake. As such, i don't see that as being a problem.

I would not doubt that you find the Dunlavy / Pass combo "lean", especially given your past combo, speaker placement and room lay-out. The Dunlavy's are known for being "faster" rather than "weighty" bass ( same with the Pass gear ). On top of that, you've literally got very little to NO room reinforcement taking place. As such, you really do need to experiment with speaker placement and / or seated listening position. Moving the speaker or seat back or forward just a bit may help land you in a specific node that will give you more apparent bass. This is the approach that Audio Physic's uses for speaker placement and you might be able to find some info on their website. Picking up an SPL meter and calibration disc ( try Rives Audio ) can help verify your results in a less subjective manner.

As to the digital gear, i am more-so talking about the Marantz but would include the entire digital front end in general. Then again, what one likes / uses for a digital front end can be rather subjective ( as is almost all of audio ) and you might find that you are happy with what you have after doing some comparisons. My thoughts of such a combo are that it would sound rather stripped and sterile, lacking liquidity, warmth, body and soul. One would have great "clarity", but overall "musicality" and "toe tap factor" would not be as high as it should be.

I would suggest working on your tonal balance problem first and then go from there. Then again, changing your digital front end might resolve the lack of extension and warmth that you seem to be lacking. I do think that the two problems "probably" are somewhat related, but i'm 100% certain that improved speaker placement can give you instant results without spending any more money. Sean
>

"Due to the wide horizontal ( but limited vertical ) dispersion of the mirror imaged design that the Dunlavy's use, you'll probably need to pay close attention to the primary points of reflection on the side walls AND toe the speakers in. This type of design typically works best with no toe-in, but your installation somewhat forces you to do so."

I'm not sure if one could call DAL's mirror-imaged, as that implied that some of the drivers are offset, and that is not the case with the speakers. In terms of setup, the DAL's are meant to be toed-into the listening seat rather profoundly. As mentioned, they should be setup on the long wall, and I think the original poster should try that placemat before attempting to implement other corrective measures. Ideally, they should be spread farther apart than the distance from the listening seat to *each* speaker. The setup section in the owner's manual is fairly complete and is best followed for optimal performance.

Best Wishes,
Felix
www.audioannex.com