What's new

Are 'boutique' brand high end proc/amps good value? (1 Viewer)

John_KM

Agent
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
36
Hello All,

Hope I've not upset anybody with my subject, as I realise many have a very substantial investment in their HT equipment, and as someone who has a not too disrespectful 2 channel system, I can understand, and respect others investments in the HT arena.

However, as a 'newbie' to HT, I'm a little unsure as to what the most important element in HT is, as regards the overall sense of involvement, the suspension of disbelief if you will, that 'being there' feeling of involvement in the 'story' that is the movie, much in the way that a good novel is an involving experience that 'takes you away' from the 'real world' for a while. I'm wondering as to whether it's the picture, or is it the sound that is the most important, or dominant element.

I've been looking at my options for 'adding/integrating' HT to my existing 2chn HiFi, using my current 28" CRT TV as the monitor. I've listened to some 'highend' preamp/processors, eg Meridian, Naim, Tag etc, as well as less esoteric models, Denon, Sony, Rotel etc. Hot favourite for me on paper (still trying to find stock here in OZ to audition) is the Sony TAE/TAN 9000ES combo, as regards reported sound quality, bass management, flexibility, and overall quality. I'm more interested in overall sound quality, than whether it has say DPL11 for eg. even though I'm aware of it's limitations in that area.

What intrigues me, is that when auditioning, and doing AB's with Naim, v's Rotel, Denon etc, the advantages were clearly heard with the more expensive (very!) processor/amp combo, as regards dynamics, clarity and detail, air and space around individual sounds in the movie mix, and the detail to be heard in any one sound, for eg the naturalness of timbre of dialogue, the subtleties of inflection, phrasing, breathing, acoustics of the environment, etc, etc. The cheaper components just couldn't give one that same level of performance, and in that sense, you got what you would pay for.

However, unlike HiFi, where I've done these kind of auditions before, and heard the performance jumps as one goes up the line in equipment quality and cost, eventually reaching a point where one is really excited by what one is hearing, and whilst realizing that there is always better, is so thrilled by what one hears, that a buying decision usually results, I couldn't say the same with HT for some odd reason, that I'm trying to figure out. Even though I could hear the differences, between both the cheaper, and much more expensive esoteric 'high end' pre/pro/amp combos, at the end of the day, on familiar and loved movies, the differences didn't significantly increase my enjoyment or sense of being there of the movie, to the point that one would be reaching hurriedly for ones wallet.

I'm wondering, is this maybe just a personal thing, in that some people maybe respond more to movies than music, and some the other way around, or is it that in the prescence of the visual, the auditory medium is of lesser importance, say as compared with HiFi, for eg 2chan, and classical music, where one does listen very intently, or at least I do!

In that sense, is spending really 'high end' money on the sound side of HT bringing greater value relative to the other important aspect of the total equation, ie the picture, as regards the total enjoyment/involvment aspect. What is the dominant element, the sound or the picture?, and to where should one assign the most funds in purchasing/upgradng etc?

It's a thorny question, and I'm most interested what others, more experienced in the HT world think.

I had a sobering and thought provoking experience the other evening. Whilst watching a regular episode of my favourite police drama, an episode of the Brit. series 'The Bill' I realised even though it was just on TV, no surround or anything, I was completely 'lost' and involved in the show, the plot, acting, etc had me on the edge of the seat. To be honest, I couldn't even tell you what the sound track was like, I was totally unaware of it.

So I'm a bit lost as to priorites in assembling the HT side of things, as to either sound, or picture. Certainly with sound, it doesn't need to be 'the best' but good enough to satisfy and enjoy, somewhere near the standards, or at least close, to what I'm getting from my 2 chann system. (BTW, I use a Naim Audio system.)

Anyway, hope this doesn't seem to much of an oddball topic, but would really like to hear what others think.

Cheers,

John.
 

Michael Lomker

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2002
Messages
164
No one will argue with the fact that high-quality content is the most compelling part of any home theater system. You touched upon that fact in a roundabout way.

The audio in movies is almost always of a lower quality than that found in 2-channel audio. That isn't out of laziness but simply because the encoding mechanisms don't permit the same level of fidelity. In that sense you could surely get by with non-boutique equipment.

A lot of us end up with Denon or better (I have Arcam) because our systems do double-duty for both 2-channel and home theater.
 

Larry B

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
1,067
John:

Your post is quite insightful. Regarding the comment

However, unlike HiFi, where I've done these kind of auditions before, and heard the performance jumps as one goes up the line in equipment quality and cost, eventually
reaching a point where one is really excited by what one is hearing, and whilst realizing that there is always better, is so thrilled by what one hears, that a buying decision usually results, I couldn't say the same with HT for some odd reason, that I'm trying to figure out. Even though I could hear the differences, between both the cheaper, and much more expensive esoteric 'high end' pre/pro/amp combos, at the end of the day, on familiar and loved movies, the differences didn't significantly increase my enjoyment or sense of being there of the movie, to the point that one
would be reaching hurriedly for ones wallet.
all I can say is "yup."

Larry
 

Ted Kim

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
214
However, unlike HiFi, where I've done these kind of auditions before, and heard the performance jumps as one goes up the line in equipment quality and cost, eventually reaching a point where one is really excited by what one is hearing, and whilst realizing that there is always better, is so thrilled by what one hears, that a buying decision usually results, I couldn't say the same with HT for some odd reason, that I'm trying to figure out. Even though I could hear the differences, between both the cheaper, and much more expensive esoteric 'high end' pre/pro/amp combos, at the end of the day, on familiar and loved movies, the differences didn't significantly increase my enjoyment or sense of being there of the movie, to the point that one would be reaching hurriedly for ones wallet.
One of my friends has that very same line of thinking and ultimately ended up with a large screen TV and his HT is stereo only. Spectral amp-preamp, SOTA turntable, Quad Electrostatics. His thinking is that he would rather have great 2 channel and still have better than adequate HT than compromised 2 channel and HT. In retrospect, if I were to do it again, I might have gone down that route rather than end up with two separate systems, one for HT and one for 2 channel. Based on your roots, you may want to evaluate whether using only 2 channels for HT is sufficient for your tastes.
 

Larry B

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
1,067
John_KM:

I have a pretty good stereo system, with very little extra added for HT. Suits me fine.

Larry
 

Kevin T

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 12, 2001
Messages
1,402
A lot of us end up with Denon or better (I have Arcam) because our systems do double-duty for both 2-channel and home theater.
michael makes a good point here. my system to also a double duty system (ead pre-pro / aragon amps). now, if i were to have two systems...i would naturally invest more in the 2 channel version and "settle" for a denon or yamaha or some other receiver with a sat-sub mixture. i think you'll find many people here have double-duty systems due to room limitations, waf, and so forth.

kevin t
 

Justin Doring

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 9, 1999
Messages
1,467
I've been through three full-blown multichannel HT systems. The first two HT systems were 5.1 systems with mid-fi receivers (Denon and then Yamaha), mid-fi mini monitors (B&W 300 series and Paradigm Monitor series), and a Velodyne subwoofer. My final multichannel HT system was a 5.0 system with mid-fi separates (Harman/Kardon and Sherwood Newcastle) and lower-hi-fi full range speakers (PSB Stratus). This 5.0 system was definitely a huge improvement over the first two, but I personally couldn't justify spending much more than that for a HT only system, as most DVDs have poor sound quality compared to CDs. With this last HT system, I could hear how the various soundtracks were "assembled," and while this was interesting, it really brought the poor sound quality of DVDs to the forefront.

I now watch DVDs on a small RPTV and a progressive scan DVD player that is connected to my high-end stereo system (Classe', Sony, NHT 3.3s). I'm extremely happy, and I don't feel I'm missing much. Of course if multiple people will be watching and listening (i.e. people will be outside the sweet spot), then a multi-channel HT system is the way to go.
 

Stephen Dodds

Second Unit
Joined
Aug 29, 1998
Messages
354
Part of the closeness could be because much of HT is based on Dolby Digital and DTS. The decoders are generally standard and are supplied on the same chips to all manufacturers. In other words the krell may use the same chips as the Denon or whatever.

IMHO, the real differences in HT sound come from those who add something of their own to the standard decoding chips, like Lexicon do with Logic 7, and Meridian with Trifield.

As far as straight out vanilla DD and DTS decoding go, I can't hear much of a difference between them.

Steve
 

John_KM

Agent
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
36
Hello All,
Thanks so much everyone for responding thus far; I'm a bit of a newbie to both HT, and the forums as well (goes with my recent, but rapidly burgeoning computer skills ;) ) and thought it might seem a bit of an oddball topic, but really great to be hearing others views and experiences, as both an helpful, informative and learning experience.
The comments so far have been very thought provoking indeed. It seems there are quite a few forum members out there who like me have approached HT from the point of longer term experience in 2 channel HiFi.
And I take the point made by Michael re
One of my friends has that very same line of thinking and ultimately ended up with a large screen TV and his HT is stereo only. Spectral amp-preamp, SOTA turntable, Quad Electrostatics. His thinking is that he would rather have great 2 channel and still have better than adequate HT than compromised 2 channel and HT. In retrospect, if I were to do it again, I might have gone down that route rather than end up with two separate systems, one for HT and one for 2 channel. Based on your roots, you may want to evaluate whether using only 2 channels for HT is sufficient for your tastes.
Like others here, I don't have the space to allow to have seperate systems; besides, I feel I'd be missing out on using my high quality 2 chan. amp and spkrs, so will be integrating HT with my 2chan. as well. As to re either picture or sound, it's a hard one. I must confess, after auditioning the Naim proc, I saw the latest top-of-the-line widescreen HDTV Sony CRT TV for the exact same cost, and on value for money, there wouldn't be any contest, I'd go with the TV! So maybe, I'm a little like your friend and his priorities. I'ts so hard to seperate the two, ie picture or sound as to dominant influence on overall HT enjoyment, but so far I tend to favour the picture on a cost for results basis, if that makes any sense.
Justin, your experiences, along with Kevin , Larry and Stephen, which seem to echo them, is that add ons to a high quality 2 chan system can work remarkably well.
As a matter of interest, for the last 4-5 yrs, I've been watching movies via VHS tape running in straight stereo, and then added a 3channel DPL decoder/amp, and a pair of EPI bookshelf speakers; the processor simply running from the 2chan preamp line out, decoding, and providing surround for the rears, the fronts remaining in straight stereo, no centre channel or sub. Up till now, this has worked very well for me, as it gave a good involvement factor for movies, and apart from the extra two speakers in the room, left my 2chan. system untouched for music listening.
However the addition of a DVD player has upped the ante considerably. I connect it directly to the 2chan. pre, running straight stereo for the fronts, and decoding DPL as mentioned for the rears. One of the byproducts it appears, for reasons I don't fully understand, of utilising the analogue outputs of a DVD player, to mixdown the 5.1 DD soundtracks to 2 channel DPL compatible stereo, is compression.
In the rare case the DVD has a 2 chan. soundtrack as well, it invariably outperforms the 5.1 track by a very considerable margin. My conclusion has been that I won't really, on average, get the best out of the new medium without going DD decoding etc. I guess, as Ted mentioned, 2 chan has been sufficient up till now for my tastes, but not with DVD as against DPL tape.
My thoughts of the Sony TAE/TAN combo, is that of an affordable way around things. It can couple to my DVD (9000ES Sony) process/decode etc, drive the 2 chann. system via it's preouts, and use it's TAN amp in 2, or 3 channel mode to drive center and rears. Hopefully this will leave my two chan. system untouched for HiFi listening, and get around the feeling of not getting all I could out of DVD movies in just straight stereo etc, for the compression reasons I've mentioned.
Anyway, this is what I'm proposing/heading towards in my thinking at the moment. Certainly, from everyones comments, I get the impression that we're all willing to 'spend up' funds willing of course!, on 2chan HiFi, but HT, is inherently somehow less demanding, or perhaps as even rewarding of the same $$ investiture with the sound.
Certainly, as a typically impecunious enthusiast, my 2chan represents years of planning, daydreaming, saving and scraping, and having achieved a great deal with it, don't want to compromise that for the sake of HT, as much as possible. Which is not to say that I don't like movies either, because I do, but don't want to 'ruin' what I've already got as it were. Ho Hum ;)
Just as a last thought here, what do people think, in the context of addng on etc to 2 chann. of the need, or otherwise, of centre channels and a sub? Most of what I've read in the mainstream press says you MUST have a center channel, but I'm not so sure. As I mainly sit watching in the 'sweet spot' I haven't so far missed a center channel, and with the auditioning I've been doing, much to the chagrin and dissaproval of every dealer, I've done AB's with the center channel on and off, and very little difference without when sitting in the 'sweet spot' As to the Sub, my speakers are -6Db at 25Hz, so it would have to be a very good sub, and my concerns here are more to do with the dynamic range of DVD, and the risk of overloading my main L&R speakers with heavy bass transients etc, rather than the need for a Sub pre se; again the 'You must have a sub' line advanced by every dealer interested in selling more product, even if the result is likely, unless carefully done, to sound worse. Oh well, sigh,,,:D
Anyway, I'm off for now to go and listen to some music, and gather my thoughts and ideas for HT,
Cheers All,
John.
 

Larry B

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
1,067
John:

As to the Sub, my speakers are -6Db at 25Hz, so it would have to be a very good sub, and my concerns here are more to do with the dynamic range of DVD, and the risk of overloading my main L&R speakers with heavy bass transients etc, rather than the need for a Sub pre re again the 'You must have a sub' line advanced by every dealer interested in
selling more product, even if the result is likely, unless carefully done, to sound worse.
I too resisted getting a sub for a long time, due to well-known problems of integration. When I finally decided to get one, I got a Rel which (1) is highly musical (a rarity among subs) and (2) allows one to select a cross-over
that works well with your mains. I highly recommend them, though they are expensive.

Regards,

Larry
 

Karl Englebright

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 9, 1999
Messages
122
As I've said elsewhere, improving the sound of Coltrane vs. that of helicopters exploding is something of a no-brainer for me.
Why is this always the assumption? The way you say this it makes it seem that movies now a days don't deserve to be listened to the best you can. Although I love high action, explosions laden movies as much as the next guy, I also enjoy the soundtrack, dialog, and other enveloping sounds of movies such as 'The Red Violin', 'Moulin Rouge', etc. I love to hear as much detail as I can get from a Coltrane recording, but just because it's music that does not mean that movie soundtracks don't deserve the same expectation.

Maybe when you audition these high end systems you should audition them with software that shows their virtues and not just expecting a 'wow' factor with movies like 'The Matrix' or 'Saving Private Ryan'.
 

Larry B

Screenwriter
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
1,067
Karl:
Your point is well taken, namely that movie audio is not only about special effects (though one cetainly gets that impression from following HT forums such as this one).
Speaking for myself, movie soundtracks never move me the way "straight" music does. Not even close. Obviously, YMMV.
Larry
 

BruceD

Screenwriter
Joined
Apr 12, 1999
Messages
1,220
I think the act of integrating HT into a current 2-channel setup is a valid approach.

In fact, I took that approach from the beginning because I didn't want to compromise my 2-channel setup.

Doing it this way means you can change any of the HT components of the system without affecting the 2-channel setup at all.

This is accomplished by connecting the Main L&R analog outputs of an HT processor to any spare L&R analog inputs on the 2-channel preamp (Naim in your case, Parasound in my case).

If the 2-channel preamp doesn't have what is called an "HT bypass" capability, no problem, just calibrate the main L&R speakers for HT use by adjusting the 2-channel preamp's volume control to produce the correct 75dB or 85dB calibration level for the HT processor. Then just mark the 2-channel preamp's volume control position for HT use. This is typically the 12 o'clock volume position called "unity gain" which means no gain or attenuation of the input signal.

This preserves the entire 2-channel setup and means all the HT stuff can be turned off while you're enjoying 2-channel sources.
 

ling_w

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 3, 2001
Messages
426
When I got my processor, it must have a good music surround mode so that if I wanted to hear 2ch source in a better way, the option would be there. So I ended up with the Meridian processor, with its Trifield mode besting many straight 2ch playback. To boot, it came with an Ambisonic decoder, I ended up being able to decode all the Nimbus Ambisonic discs I bought in the 80's.

I also didn't compromise much with the 2ch setup since I use a FPTV with a drop-down screen. The main speakers had to be moved out a little, but given my planar's being less sensitive to side wall proximity, it was a fair tradeoff.

I also had to move the audio rack to the side since with the drop-down screen, nothing would become accessable. The only thing left there is the amp. This actually benefitted the sound since there is nothing in between the L&R speakers. I don't think I would have ever put a RPTV there.

I don't think I would have gone through the whole route if I was only interested in HT. And if I couldn't find a processor that allowed me to enhance my 2ch CDs, I probably wouldn't have gone multi-channel.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
16
I'm a little unsure as to what the most important element in HT is, as regards the overall sense of involvement, the suspension of disbelief if you will, that 'being there' feeling of involvement in the 'story' that is the movie, much in the way that a good novel is an involving experience that 'takes you away' from the 'real world' for a while. I'm wondering as to whether it's the picture, or is it the sound that is the most important, or dominant element.
Actually, John, in my experience it is neither of these. "Taking you away", "being there" and the "suspension of disbelief" have to do with your frame of mind which I have found is most easily controlled by your environment. For me, the environment had the greatest impact on my frame of mind. Once I controlled it I found that it became easier to get to that "taken away" feeling. So to answer your question, creating the proper environment is the single most important element in creating a Home Theatre.

For me creating the proper environment has been to first isolate my home theatre from the disturbances of the "real" world. That means no doorbells or telephones ringing, no noise when the AC kicks on or when the kids are wrestling in the room next door. Acoustically, it means reducing those disturbing echoes that render dialogue unintelligible and accentuates portions of the audio spectrum. It means creating a surround field where I can feel that I am in a rainforest or a spaceship or a car careening over the hills of San Francisco. It means being comfortable in my environment so that sitting for several hours does not cause me to fall asleep nor fidget around trying to wake up some part of my body which has lost circulation. The room should not stand out and say "notice me" with bright colors or esoteric decorums. The room should ease and comfort me with its unassuming neutrality in color and texture. Visually it should not stand apart from the images presented in front of me nor cause distortions of color or texture in those images. In short the best investment in home theater is to create that unassuming, and isolated environment that makes it easier for you to "get into" that frame of mind that allows a "good" movie or piece of music to "take you away."
 

Justin Doring

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 9, 1999
Messages
1,467
If one person is watching and listening in the sweet spot, two full range speakers are all you need, in my opinion. If, however, a bunch of people will be watching and listening in various locations throughout the room, I'd go with a 5.1 system with mini monitors and a sub. If the system is to do double duty with music for yourself in the sweetspot and home theater for family and friends throughout the room, I'd go for a 5.0 system with large full range towers for the mains, a matching center channel, and mini monitor rears.
 

John_KM

Agent
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
36
Hello All,
Well it sounds as if I might be on the right track with things, especially re integrating HT with existing 2 channel. And that others experiences echo my own re the center channel speaker. I think it improves dialogue slightly compared to just left and right spkrs only, but mainly for those not in the 'sweet spot' as has been suggested. And in that context, worthwhile, but not an absolute necessity it would seem.
With regards a sub:
I too resisted getting a sub for a long time, due to well-known problems of integration. When I finally decided to get one, I got a Rel which (1) is highly musical (a rarity among subs) and (2) allows one to select a cross-over
From what I've heard so far, and from what's also available, I'd thoughts of either M&K, or the REL as well. Have heard a Strata 111, and was most impressed. Being a sealed box design, had a nice tuneful sound, like my main speakers, and also has different inputs so as can be used with both HT and 2chan HiFi, most useful I feel. At the moment though, my budget won't stretch to a top sub, so planning to run initially 'subless' - has anyone had problems doing this as in overdriving mains with the bass etc? - which is a concern.
I think David hit the nail on the head re creating the right sort of environment, couldn't agree more, and most certainly one that is difficult to achieve in HT demo rooms.
I hope that Karl doesn't feel that I somehow 'disregard' or belittle the importance of sound in the context of HT as against music per se. The point for me is one of priorities. Yes, of course I want the best sound, but there's only so many $$ to go around, so does one assign that to picture, or sound to get the best result re overall enjoyment and involvment of the movie. (Assuming we've got an environment conducive to this of course :) )
I cannot but help think that the parameters of assesment if you will, of HT, is different from that of HiFi to some degree. With HiFi (and I'm talking 2chan here) things like the so called soundstage width, depth, height, timbral accuracy, focus and imagery, air space, detail, dynamics, transient response, timing, rythmn etc all are terms we use to describe and hopefully in some way objectify what a given system does. To some degree, certainly on the sound side of things, these terms also would seem to apply to HT.
Sounstage width, depth, height, imaging and focus, air and space, etc is pretty much in the domain of the quality of the processing as far as I can tell, and the resultant soundfield that it creates. Particularly important, I think, are clarity, dynamics, timing and rythmn. In the general mix that I hear in a movie sound track, it seems to be dialogue, sound effects, and then music in roughly that order of priority as far as I can tell. Clarity, dynamics, rythmn etc seem to make a great deal of difference in the delivery of dialogue, the sense of reality of the effects, the naturalness if you will, of the sound in total.
However, unlike HiFi, we have the added sense of the visual, in the form of the picture. Personally, in the context of experiencing HT, I find I notice flaws, or anomalies much more readily with the visual, than I do with the sound, so, a slightly lower quality of sound (that balancing act with the $$ again) is less noticeable, albeit not less desirable, in the context of a total 'being there' HT experience.
Maybe I'm on the wrong track here, but I think the addition of the visual, makes a big difference in how acutely we perceive, or need to perceive the sound. It appears to me, that the focus of the movie is in the plot, acting, story line and so on, and the photography which maybe could be considered an integral part of that, and then the sound effects which add to and support that which we're seeing before us, and the music somewhat in the background, so as to provide emotional involvment, and 'shape' the scene as much as possible to the directors intentions.
I'll try to illustrate. There's a scene in the movie 'Legend of the Falls' where the hero (Brad Pitt) is up high on a grassy mound, overlooking spectacular mountain scenery, mourning and crying over the grave of his dead brother, and being comforted by his dead brothers fiance. One hears the dialogue and the tears, and sees it happening, in the most beautiful surroundings with the soft sounds of gentle wind etc, and the music just wells up so quietly, and gently, and most eveyone watching this scene that I've noticed, really feels it, and a few tears have been noticed! The thing is, the whole scene works, because one thing seems to compliment the other, but one scarecly seems to notice the sound, apart from the dialogue - you're aware of it, but kind of almost on a secondary subconscious level - mostly one is just caught up in the power of the scene, one with which most people who have experienced great loss can relate to, and the music just so subtly builds the mood. What would the scene be if to be totally ludicrous, the soundtrack was say, ragtime??
To me, to make that illustration, the point I'm getting at, and I may be wrong, is that a slight variation in quality of the sound probably would go un-noticed, but not the visuals, or the acting, that's what it was about, and the sound served mainly to supplement and augment that I thought.
Anyway, that's enough from me, I'm only a curious learner here, but greatly appreciate all the input. I'm off again, to watch a good movie this time, in 'pseudo surroun' dreaming of my new HT to come.
Cheers all,
John
 

Craig_Kg

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 25, 2002
Messages
768
Why not just get a midrange HT receiver with preouts John?
It sounds like the Sony STR-DB1070 would satisfy your needs and it's down to A$999 now.

The M&K pushpull subs are terrifically tight probably due to the sealed enclosure as you have observed with the RELs.

Center speakers make a difference if you have more than just a couple of people watching but if you can all be near the sweet spot, then it isn't necessary.
 

John_KM

Agent
Joined
Jun 24, 2002
Messages
36
Hello All,

Sorry to be tardy in replying Craig, spot of the old Windoze problems.

Why not just get a midrange HT receiver with preouts John?
Thanks for the suggestion Craig. I'll have a look, I see it has preouts in the 'Sony Pulse' catalogue. I'm fairly keen still though on one of the ES models, although don't know if it's be overkill, but like the quality etc, as an 'overall' buy.

The hard part will be in finding the models where I can AB auditon them to make an effective descision. I really appreciate, and thank all those who've written in and responded to my lengthy posts - I'm new to this and have lots of thoughts in my head about how to approach building the right set up, and have found others comments most useful and insightful.

Next thing to try and do some auditioning.

Anyway, must away to wrestle some more with my infernal computing device,,

Cheers All,

John.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 1999
Messages
16
Soundstage width, depth, height, imaging and focus, air and space, etc is pretty much in the domain of the quality of the processing
Well, not entirely John, any piece of equipment you put in the chain will affect the "sound". Starting with the pre-amplifier/processor, to the amplifiers and ending with the speakers. Using a pre-amplifier-amplifier arrangement over a receiver will achieve noticeable gains in sound quality. For pre-amplifiers I like the sound (and price) of Anthem and B&K. For amplifiers the Marantz MA500 has won me over for its mid-range clarity and definition (the price is good also). It is detailed and brilliant on the upper frequencies without the harshness I hear in lesser quality devices (I have read your post about Sony devices, simply put, I have not heard a Sony receiver that I like, IMHO, all have a harsh and unnatural sound in the upper frequencies and an overemphasis in the 2-3K mid-range). For the lower frequencies I use a subwoofer from Hsu Research (www.hsuresearch.com) and its associated subwoofer amplifier. I bi-amp my main LCR which adds further detail to the audio. I currently use Definitive Technology speakers but may change to Magneplanar speakers from Magnepan. Here are some interesting notes and websites on the Magnaplanar speakers http://www.audiorevolution.com/equip/magnepan/
http://www.magnepan.com/
Remember from my earlier post to set up your environment first then the equipment will come and be replaced, then come again just to be replaced yet again ........ But the acoustic quality and ambience of the room will remain.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top