Need opinions - Cambridge Soundworks, Wharfedale, Klipsch?

freddie New member Username: Boulderdashcci Canton, Mass USA Post Number: 9 Registered: Apr-07	Posted on Sunday, January 06, 2008 - 07:43 GMT First off let me say that I already have a thread about this in the Home Theater Bragging Area, however I'm not getting much help. I was hoping I would be given suggestions on long term plans with my system, but that wasn't really the case with the exception of the first few posts. I'm sorry if having two threads essentially asking the same thing is looked down upon, please just let me know. Basically I'm wondering which speakers to try, which to stay away from, and which I'll get the most value out of. I'm running an Onkyo TX-SR502 (around 30w/channel I'd guess) in a 12x18 room. Right now my system is mismatched, because I bought things to make up for where my cheap matched speakers lacked. However I'd like to go into something with a bit more quality. Right now I'm running a Teac center and surrounds (I got these as my first setup with a cheap JVC receiver. Good for a $99 set of 5.1s I guess, but there is a noticeable midbass dropoff when running a sweep, and they do distort), JBL N24II fronts (these solved the midbass problem and are decent speakers - I'll probably continue to run them as B speakers by my bed), a Cambridge MC50 as back surround, and a KLH Tremor piece of crap with a Lightning Audio (Walmart car sub that I replaced the original with to try to get rid of some distortion) that was only bought because the Teac sub couldn't do ANYTHING for deep bass. It is very picky about placement and is really quiet or really boomy unless it's set JUST right. The three brands I'm looking into to replace all of these are Cambridge Soundworks, Wharfedale, and Klipsch. I have always been a fan of Cambridge since my friends dad had a set of Ensemble/Surround (Bipole/Dipole)/Center Plus with a Basscube 8, running off of an older Marantz ProLogic receiver. This setup is what got me interested in home theater. Option 1- I'm ordering some clearanced Newton S200 surrounds (Bi/Dipole) Monday because they're too good of a deal to miss. If I like them (they have a 45 day money back thing), I'll probably continue down the Cambridge route. My long term plan with these are M50/M55 (whatever's out at the time) bookshelfs as fronts, an MC305 center, the MC50 I have for back surround, and an HSU VTF-1 subwoofer. I have heard all of the older versions of these in the showroom and all sound great with my receiver (heard them back then the 502 was new, and that was partially the reason I bought it). This is the option I'm leaning towards. All in all it will cost a little over $1000. Option 2- Wharfedale caught my attention while reading reviews on audioreview. The Diamond 9s seemed to be raved about, and I like the look of them a lot. The biggest problem here is that I have only found them through one online dealer, and can't find any physical dealers in my area of Boston (or in the whole US for that matter). I believe the said online dealer is charging a bit more than they should because some of their other stuff was overpriced. My plan for these would be Diamond 9 or 9.1 fronts, Diamond CS center, WH-2 surrounds, and the same sub I mentioned before. Option 3- Klipsch have always looked nice to me but I have never listened to them besides at Best Buy. I know you can't really appreciate speakers there, so I was wondering some people's opinions on them since I have no real way to try them like I'd like to (this is why I like Cambridge's 45 day return policy). Are horn tweeters an acquired taste? Will they sound good in my room with my receiver? My plan with these are probably just the bottom of the line Best Buy Synergy 3s, because of the high prices of them. I'm also open to other suggestions. I'd really like to get the best sound I can out of the money I'm spending (just note these are all long term plans - Another thing I like about Cambridge is they don't come out with new stuff very often, so I can build this up over time and not lose out on matching). Right now I've got about $180 to spend, and if I don't like these surrounds I'm going to return them and do center shopping. My fronts are good enough for now and I don't have the funds to replace my sub. The system is used for TV (in PLIIx), movies, and music via my Zen Vision M (I'd like to get a turntable though, because there are a few LPs I'd like to pick up). If you missed before, room is 12x18', receiver is an Onkyo TX-SR502. Thanks to anyone willing to help... -Freddie
Christopher Molloy Gold Member Username: Exerciseguy Brooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1688 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 03:11 GMT Something is up with IAG America, the parent company of Wharfedale, Mission & Quad. I think they're having serious distribution problems in the USA. Their products were pulled from Audio Advisor after they had practically dedicated an entire catalogue to pushing Wharfedale products. If you can find them at a decent price, the Wharfedale Diamond 9s are a fantastic choice, and more than worth a listen. There are some fantastic deals on Infinity Primus & Beta Series speakers around, I strongly suggest you check them out if you can.
Jan Vigne Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne Dallas, TX Post Number: 11984 Registered: May-04	Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 05:15 GMT . "I'd really like to get the best sound I can out of the money I'm spending ... " Then you need to ask yourself some questions rather than have us supply the same old answers we give to every speaker question. If you want an opinion on those three speakers, you can read the archives of the forum and discover what most of us feel about various designs. Rather to begin with you need to ask yourself what is important to you in what you hear. Then decide what is less important and can be negotiated away or down in significance. Just saying you want tight bass, clear mids and clean highs isn't enough. We all pretty much want that. If that were all there was to it, all speaker manufacturers would be producing speakers with tight bass, clear mids and clean highs and every speaker would sound alike. As is that's not happening and too few speakers even come close to sounding like music. From your brief list I get the sense you're reading speaker reviews and letting someone else discover what's good about a certain speaker. While I find value in reviews I find little value in letting someone else do the work for me. You need to know, or decide, what you want to hear with a clear thought to an end result being a complete system that works together. That's not an easy task at this point when you're simply concentrating on which speakers give "the best sound". The three speakers you list don't sound much like each other. That somewhat tells me you don't know what you want. OK, that's why you're here asking questions. But you're asking the wrong question. A few other members do well with this sort of thread by mentioning speakers they prefer. How much that helps the original poster I don't know. As repetitive as "go listen to XXX" is, I'll give you the same advice I have given to clients for years. You need to know what music sounds like before you can find out how to reproduce it well. You need to listen to live music on a regular basis with an ear towards what makes the music interesting and what holds your attention. Don't listen with the idea of how does this live music compare to the speakers you heard today. That's getting things backward. You need to get away from how a speaker sounds and concentrate on how music affects you. You need to stop comparing one speaker to another speaker and begin comparing the music you hear through a system to what you heard live. It shouldn't matter whether a horn tweeter is an acquired tatse. It shouldn't matter at all how the speaker does what it does. It shouldn't matter what we like. All that should matter is that the music you hear through the system is capable of holding your attention in the same way live music can. Forget watts, forget remotes and forget woofers and subwoofers. Just listen to the music as you would if you were hearing it played live in your room. Ignore what's getting the music in your room. You need to move beyond thinking of this speaker or that sepaker and think of the entire system. Synergy is something this forum is big on because it makes low priced equipment work together, to compliment each piece in a system, to sound like much more expensive gear and most importantly to get the system out of the way so you can hear the music. You cannot divorce the speaker from the amplifier nor the amplifier from the CD player if you want the "best sound I can out of the money I'm spending". Everything in the system should work toward providing what is important to you - and you must know what those priorities are so you can weed out what suits your needs and what does not. The three speakers you've mentioned are all different from each other and would work together in different systems to get the most from each. Learning how the pieces go together is something you discover when you stop buying equipment and start listening to the music. Maybe you believe that's what you've been doing all this time and possibly I am wrong about what I read in your post. But just the fact you want the best "sound" suggests I'm not. That leads me to think you are listening to speakers with the idea that a speaker should sound a certain way when ideally a speaker should sound like it's not there at all. I would suggest you find a dealer willing to spend some time with someone not ready to buy anything just yet. This probably isn't going to be a Best Buy. If you have access to any independent audio dealers, stop by on a quiet weekday afternoon and just ask some questions and listen to what they sell. A good dealer is willing to spend time with anyone who has an interest in music. You should be able to go in every now and then to get ideas and clarify what you want to hear. Just don't take time away from the paying clients when you want to hear the new CD you just purchased. Try to find one salesperson and stick with that person when you go in. Develop a plan with the dealer and make your visits count toward learning more about how things go together, hearing less hifi and hearing more music. Don't expect a dealer to rearrange their shop for you, particularly if you aren't close to being ready to buy. Listen to the various systems they sell at different prices and find out what they have in common. If you find a dealer with this sort of set up who is willing to work with a new listener, you should be able to talk with them to develop a strategy that will pay off in the end. Be patient. None of this comes quickly and you'll be better off if you don't buy something just to have something. Buy something when you're convinced it's what you want but don't agonize over whether one speaker or one amplifier is the "perfect" choice. Most of all, enjoy the music. .
freddie Bronze Member Username: Boulderdashcci Canton, Mass USA Post Number: 11 Registered: Apr-07	Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 06:29 GMT I do agree with everything you've said, and overall I agree that it is my ear that needs to make the decision. I have been reading reviews but I'm mostly trying to get a sense of how the components work together (am I going to have to strain the amp, is matching decent, etc), and not so much the individual speaker's sound because thats subjective of the listener. This was mainly the purpose of my post, I'm sorry if I came across as simply "tell me what I can get for x amount". I do however, want to be told if something I'm looking at is completely wrong for what I have and what I'd like to do. I did plan on going to Cambridge's showroom this week to listen to my option one system, or close to it. I'm still ordering the S200s tomorrow because of the price they're going for (I'll honestly feel sick if I don't at least give them a chance for this price), however I want to hear this whole system or something close to it with my material. If I don't like the way the system sounds, the S200 will be going back in the box and I'll be looking elsewhere. If I do, I'll be saving up. The problem with Wharfedale (and Klipsch, to a lesser extent as we have BestBuy) is that there are no dealers here. Trying these is basically jumping into them, and I want to know that if I do this, I'm not getting total crap. Cambridge Soundworks are really the only ones I can really audition at a showroom. I don't know of any other audio dealers around here (I'm going to see if I can find any after I post this), so I'm pretty limited on what I can actually sample. It's not so much that I know what sound I want, and that speakers should sound a certain way, it's that I know what sound I don't want. Again, I know sound is completely subjective, however I'm sick of mismatched, TEAC crap with one note/boomy bass. I'm not asking people to pick stuff for me (and I'm sorry if that's how I made it sound), I'd just like to know what I'm looking at won't have the same negative attributes as what I have now (however I do know that room acoustics play into this). As far as my comment on the horn tweeters, I was just wondering how different of a sound they produce as opposed to dome, which I have always had. Not which is better, just how big the difference is. Believe me, I know all about opinion and subjectivity. My other hobby (roller coasters) is also very deep with this. Coasters that rank among the top 3 in the world I have ranked in my list in the 30s, and coasters that ranked in the 30s I have in my top 3. I know it's all about how the speaker sounds to the end user, not about how the speaker sounds to someone else. Like I said, I was wondering mostly how these components work together, not the actual sound of each individual one. Thank you very much for taking the time to reply...
Jan Vigne Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne Dallas, TX Post Number: 11985 Registered: May-04	Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 15:36 GMT . "I know sound is completely subjective ... " "I know it's all about how the speaker sounds to the end user ... " Well, no, it's not. You're missing the most important point I tried to make. The speaker should not "sound" like anything. If you read what I posted again, I think you'll find I am not suggesting there are no boundaries to the sound of music other than what you subjectively prefer. I am suggesting live music should be your reference not the "sound" of a speaker. I am suggesting that if the speaker has a "sound" you should probably pass on it. I am suggesting you stop thinking of what you are buying in terms of "sound" and begin concentrating on the music and how does it compare to a reference of live music which you hear on a regular basis. When you listen to live music you might come away with a different set of impressions regarding what you heard than would I or anyone else. You might prefer to sit in the front row and I might prefer the first balcony. That alone will change our impression of the "sound" of live music. You might prefer to concentrate on the way a musician plays their instrument - where on a drum head the drummer strikes the stick, how a bass player chords rather than pulls single notes, sounds that surround the performers such as shuffling feet or fingers on strings. On the other hand, I might listen for the pacing and movement of the music and have little concern for the choice of guitar pick. Or I might have an interest in the tone the performers can pull from their instruments or even just the basic difference between Clapton's Fender and King's Gibson. So both of us can hear the same performance and still have different ideas about what we heard. But the reference is live music and not the "sound" of a speaker. That does not mean everything is "subjective". It does not mean you get to make up the tone of a Fender or Gibson guitar just to suit yourself. It does not mean you have free rein in choosing whatever pleases you at the moment if you are trying to find the sound of music rather than the sound of a hifi. It does mean you must work at what you are hearing when you are developing your priorities and references just as you would work at understanding and developing a "taste" for anything else. I don't know roller coasters so let me explain with a few things I do know. If I'm learning how to cook in the style of Italian food, I can't just throw some cilantro into the pasta sauce just because I have cilantro or I like cilantro. Cilantro doesn't compliment the other ingredients that make up Italain cuisine. If I add it because subjectively I like cilantro, then I'm not cooking in the style of Italian cuisine. If I want to build a piece of furniture in the Art Deco fashion, I can't just stick Victorian filligree on that chair because I like Victorian filligree. If I am interested in painting in the Expressionist style, I am not looking to add Baroque overtones. All those may seem like a stretch when you just want to know which speaker gives the best sound, but the point is to know something about what your trying to capture. In the case of speakers, you are trying to bring music into your home, or, at least, that's what I would suppose. So, finding the right system to do that is subjective only in the sense that your priorities might be different than mine. It does not change the sound of Clapton's Fender to anything you subjectively wish it to be. For a roller coaster I suppose it would be you preferring the thrill of the coaster slowly making its way to the top of the rise while someone else prefers the swift and dangerous descent. Both relate to a roller coaster and not a truck. Your priorities in a music system are based around the thing you are trying to recreate and have some restrictions on themself. There is no place for pure "subjectivity" unless you simply don't care which system best recreates music. As I said in my first post, the idea most long time audio enthisiasts have is of a system that does as little as possible to call attention to itself - which makes a comparison to roller coasters all the more difficult. But the idea is to find components that do not draw attention to themself. If you find a horn tweeter calling attention to itself, then you shouldn't be concerned about whether you're hearing a horn tweeter. In that case your concern should be that you are hearing a speaker - period. To answer your basic question, none of the speakers you mention are difficult loads for an amplifier. Any one of them should be a load that will not tax the average receiver and will not have their performance dictated by the amplifier's shortcomings. .
David Mitchell Silver Member Username: Dmitchell Ottawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 507 Registered: Feb-07	Posted on Monday, January 07, 2008 - 15:41 GMT I own the Klipsch Synergy F2 speakers, and I quite like them. A lot of people describe Klipsch speakers as "bright", but to my ears they actually sound quite neutral. Could be the amplifier I'm driving them with (an old NAD 2150). Anyway, I quite like the speakers.
Dan L. Bronze Member Username: Kbear Post Number: 43 Registered: Dec-06	Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 01:21 GMT I understand the point that live music should be used as the reference. After all, that is what music sounds like - no electronics or speakers to get in the way and colour the sound, just musical instruments, vocals, and your ears. But I wonder how practical the comparison is. Maybe it depends on what music, and what kind of recordings, you listen to. Surely if you listen to studio recordings (and I would think this is what most people listen to), you probably can't expect the songs to sound like they do when they are performed live. Also, if you listen to rock (especially hard rock), well you probably know the sound quality of most live performances. Volume levels are usually extremely loud and distorted, and I find the sound to be extremely bright. Not the kind of sound I'd want my stereo to re-produce. For critical hi-fi listening you'd obviously rather have a nice clean studio recording, or at the very least a live recording that was taken right off the soundboard. Those can be of very nice quality. I tend to focus on things like are details within the music brought forth, warm/neutral/bright, how musical a system sounds, pacing, imaging, coherence, clarity, and how the speakers deal with passages where there is a lot going on all at once. I find it difficult to relate how my choice of music sounds on a stereo system to the way it sounds in a live setting.
Nick K Silver Member Username: Nickelbut10 Post Number: 976 Registered: Jun-07	Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 02:38 GMT "As I said in my first post, the idea most long time audio enthisiasts have is of a system that does as little as possible to call attention to itself" Yup. Freddie, a system should reproduce the music as close as possible to its natural recorded state. Adding no coloration in any way. That goes for Speakers and Amps/Integrated Amp/Receivers. Dan L- I think what Jan means is that you have to understand live Music, to justify what music should sound like. What characteristics in music, that you enjoy. Ever been to a concert and was blown away by the performance and sound? Were you blown away because of the PRaT? The "Low End"? The Detail? or any other words that would describe a piece of electronic? No way man. It just sounds "awesome", its live right? Nothing beats live music. And I think when we auditioning Hi Fi equipment were thinking too much about the electronics and not enough about what we like to hear in the actual Music. You know what I mean? Im having a hard time explaining it, Jan has been explaining it much better, so I will leave it to him.lol Cheers.
Jan Vigne Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne Dallas, TX Post Number: 12002 Registered: May-04	Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 02:47 GMT . "I understand the point that live music should be used as the reference. After all, that is what music sounds like - no electronics or speakers to get in the way and colour the sound, just musical instruments, vocals, and your ears." So, if you hook your guitar to an amp, you can't make music? That's going to make it tough on the Hammond B3 player. "But I wonder how practical the comparison is. Maybe it depends on what music, and what kind of recordings, you listen to." No, you're missing the point. The idea is to find the musical value of any recording by concentrating on the music and not the "sound". I believe a "better" sound system should allow you to enjoy more music, not less. As your system becomes more transparent to the source/music you should be able to find what is of value in even a "bad" recording as long as the performance is worthwhile. I listen to quite a bit of mono material where there is limited "soundstage". I also listen to historical recordings which have rolled off frequency response and sufficient noise to make them unacceptable to an "audiophile". However, both types of recordings have musical merit because of the manner in which they were recorded. That same musical merit is often destroyed by most modern recording techniques. "Surely if you listen to studio recordings (and I would think this is what most people listen to), you probably can't expect the songs to sound like they do when they are performed live." Why not? I expect the same musicians to play with equal talent. "Also, if you listen to rock (especially hard rock), well you probably know the sound quality of most live performances. Volume levels are usually extremely loud and distorted, and I find the sound to be extremely bright. Not the kind of sound I'd want my stereo to re-produce." Then I would suggest you find what makes the music relevant or interesting once the volume has been lowered to an acceptable level in your room. You're listening through better equipment with less crap added from the auditorium. That should make the music sound better. Other than the Grateful Dead bootlegs and so forth, I don't know any live recordings where they just stuck a microphone out in the audience space to capture all the junk from the auditorium. Even with the bootlegs you should be able to hear and appreciate the music through the sound quality. Thousands of people who aren't audiophiles do that on a regular basis. Did you forget how to listen to music when you bought your system? Did you buy your system to listen to music or to hear how a bunch of electronics and speakers do "soundstage"? "For critical hi-fi listening you'd obviously rather have a nice clean studio recording, or at the very least a live recording that was taken right off the soundboard. Those can be of very nice quality." "Critical listening" means what? Not enjoying the music? When I listen to music, I'm more critical of the performance and the musical composition that I am of sound quality. I have too many "audiophile" recordings that are terrific sound quality with boring music played by less than inspired performers. I'd rather have low sound quality and knock me out music. You should try that. "I tend to focus on things like are details within the music brought forth ... As I said above, if that's what interests you in live music, I have no problem with that. It's not that high on my list. I'll take nuance and style. warm/neutral/bright ..." Sorry, that has nothing to do with the music. If you are recalling the sound of a specific auditorium such as Carnegie Hall, then I can see the value of the reference. Otherwise, what does "bright" tell you about the music? "how musical a system sounds ... " What's "musical" mean if you're only listening to the hifi? "pacing ... " Yes, that relates to how the musicians are performing. So what does that mean to you? "imaging ... " Nothing to do with the music. Do you sit in the concert and decide your system has better "imaging" than live music? "coherence ... " What's that mean to you? Coherent to what? clarity ... " Clarity? Clarity of what? Clarity of the performer's intent? Clarity of the speaker? I don't understand. "and how the speakers deal with passages where there is a lot going on all at once." Once again, this is a hifi judgement in most cases. How do you go about judging what the system does when "there is a lot going on all at once"? How do you go about judging what is the fault of the system and what is the fault of the performer(s)? Some performers just can't play at high level when the music gets complicated. I get the feeling you're using your system as a reference for how live music sounds. .
Nick K Silver Member Username: Nickelbut10 Post Number: 977 Registered: Jun-07	Posted on Wednesday, January 09, 2008 - 02:59 GMT Crossed posts..lol..You see I told you he would explain it better.
Michael Wodek Gold Member Username: Mike3 Wylie, Tx USA Post Number: 1013 Registered: May-06	Posted on Thursday, January 10, 2008 - 05:07 GMT P.S. to Jan's post. I listened to my system critically to the point where I thought it was as good as it gets, as good as I hope for, as good as i can afford, as good as I can build. Now I could care less about all of that "detail". I know I have maxed out my systemm (Bang for the Buck) and I simply sit back and enjoy the music. Upgrades and tweaks are in the offing, but not important anymore. Everything has its time and place. It takes quite the effort to make a delicious cake. Eating it is the fun part.
freddie Bronze Member Username: Boulderdashcci Canton, Mass USA Post Number: 12 Registered: Apr-07	Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 02:05 GMT Ok so I've tried to take everything posted here into account and went out last night to Walmart and found a system I liked. It was only $150, and it almost sounds as good as the Onkyo as long as you don't turn it up loud! Or, today I got my S200s. I'm running them in dipole because of room size/limitations mounted on the wall directly behind me and so far I'm very happy with them. I just watched Black Hawk Down and the helicopter flybys and bullets were far more realistic than they ever were (to me) with the monopoles. While I've never had bullets or RPGs flying feet away from me so I have no real point of reference, these speakers made me feel like I was in the action a lot more than my old surrounds did. My crappy Teac fronts and center seemed to keep up well too without distorting and I was playing the movie pretty loud. Perhaps the acoustics of my old room was what caused the (perceived, perhaps?) distortion I mentioned (I recently moved, my old room was very oddly shaped and was very open)? I still plan on going to the Cambridge Showroom to hear the full system I want all together, and make adjustments to the pieces I plan to buy. However I'm really leaning towards them after hearing these surrounds. In addition to that, as I mentioned I loved my friend's father's CSW since I first heard it, and I've had CSW MicroWorks II for about two years and have always loved them. Maybe they do have a sound to them that while unnatrual, is what I imagine is a faithful reproduction of sound? I don't know. I have listened to Polks and Infinitys and didn't care for the sound either of them gave off. Maybe these are closer to real reproduction but don't suit my tastes? Again, I don't know. As Dan L. guessed, I listen to lots of metal (however it's very post rock influenced metal, so it does have a very clean studio sound). Recordings are the closest reference point I have because live shows can be distorted, which defeats the purpose as it's a system thats reproducing them. I have heard jazz live, and I have heard jazz through systems, however I have not listened to it enough to create a reference point/benchmark for the sound the speakers I'm looking for should recreate. Live music to me is about the total atmosphere, but I don't think I can pick apart the actual sound that the band makes enough for a benchmark. I still believe sound is subjective. While I agree that a note is a note, the way you and I hear it may be different. Maybe I'm wrong here, but wouldn't this account for different tastes in music? If sound was all heard and perceived the same way by everybody, we'd all be listening to and enjoying the same music, movie sound effects, and speakers, no? I'm enjoying all of your posts, so if I'm off, please by all means correct me. Thank you again for the help.
freddie Bronze Member Username: Boulderdashcci Canton, Mass USA Post Number: 13 Registered: Apr-07	Posted on Friday, January 11, 2008 - 02:33 GMT Jan - I re-read your second post and it makes more sense to me than I gave credit to in my post above. I agree with your points about different seating placement, auditoriums, different ways instruments are played, etc playing into subjectivity. Just thought I'd add that as I can't edit my post above to fit that better, so ignore some of those comments.
Dan L. Bronze Member Username: Kbear Post Number: 44 Registered: Dec-06	Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 01:46 GMT Jan, I do believe that a studio recording and a live recording do not sound the same. Studio recordings are often more polished because of the time and tools afforded the producers. Now perhaps it's more so for some types of music than for others but in my experience it is so for the kind of music I listen to. I'm not saying one is better than the other - I love my studio and my live recordings equally. Then I would suggest you find what makes the music relevant or interesting once the volume has been lowered to an acceptable level in your room. You're listening through better equipment with less crap added from the auditorium. That should make the music sound better. Other than the Grateful Dead bootlegs and so forth, I don't know any live recordings where they just stuck a microphone out in the audience space to capture all the junk from the auditorium. Even with the bootlegs you should be able to hear and appreciate the music through the sound quality. Thousands of people who aren't audiophiles do that on a regular basis. Did you forget how to listen to music when you bought your system? Did you buy your system to listen to music or to hear how a bunch of electronics and speakers do "soundstage"? Actually, I do think my system makes music sound better. I truly do enjoy listening to it. I know it's nothing special as far as equipment goes, but compared to what most people listen to (and what I used to listen to) - by that I mean a boombox, or a cheap home theatre, or cheap PC speakers - I think it sounds impressive. And yes, I do enjoy all sorts of bootlegs...be they great quality soundboards, or even relatively poor audience recordings. I love one band in particular, so I collect all their material, from MFSL gold discs right on down to audience recorded bootlegs. I've gone to see them live a couple of times and will do so again if I get the chance. "Critical listening" means what? Not enjoying the music? When I listen to music, I'm more critical of the performance and the musical composition that I am of sound quality. I have too many "audiophile" recordings that are terrific sound quality with boring music played by less than inspired performers. I'd rather have low sound quality and knock me out music. You should try that. I'd rather have that too. I like to think that the music I buy is great music - and I guess for my tastes it is. I wouldn't buy something if I didn't love the music (or at least one or two songs). I wouldn't buy something just because it's considered a quality recording by the audiophile community. I don't think most audiophile recordings are in the genre that I like most. True, most times I like to sit back and just enjoy the music. But I also love to listen critically. Sure, why not? It's also fun. At the same time though, I am also enjoying the music. You said you'd take nuance and style over details. But do details brought to the surface not affect that? I don't see how those are mutually exclusive. I can't help it...when I hear the light strumming of guitars underneath the rhythm section and electric guitar, I love that. It's not just critical listening, but it adds to the experience of the song. I really can't see how it's one or the other and not both. Sorry, that has nothing to do with the music. If you are recalling the sound of a specific auditorium such as Carnegie Hall, then I can see the value of the reference. Otherwise, what does "bright" tell you about the music? Fair enough. Probably it doesn't say much. I am still a newbie at this hobby. I don't think I've heard enough yet to truly distinguish what is bright and what is dark. So it's something I am still listening for. I assume the differences are often times subtle. I know equipment should remain neutral and not colour the music - though this is probably a matter of taste as well, as we are all different and some folks may prefer a certain kind of presentation. I can't say yet what my preference is for sure. I am not sure on the exact meaning of each phrase. But to me... Musical - the system presents the various sounds in a way where they just seem to fit together right. I've noticed how some systems seem to resolve notes better than others, less jarringly. This feeling is very difficult for me to put into words. Pacing - I think this is tied to "musical" in some ways, but I know this is part of the PRaT thing that often gets discussed among audiophiles. On some systems certain music just sounds right. Timing is also part of this. Imaging and soundstage - fair enough, it's got nothing to do with live music. I'm not even convinced of imaging's importance to me to be honest. It's something I'm still trying to listen for, but I haven't been able to identify it consistently as yet in my limited experience listening to hifi. Coherence - the ability of the speaker to present a coherent sound between higher and lower frequencies. Similar to timing I'd think. Clarity - yes, of the speaker. A lot going on all at once - I guess the word for this is congested. I never thought of it being down to the recording or musicians. But surely some speakers are able to handle these kinds of passages better than others. We are not always looking for these things, but when we do it does not mean we aren't also enjoying the music. These things, to me at least, enhance the the listening experience because when I hear them it just sounds so impressive. While I can crank up my Sony boombox and rock out or be moved by music, it is most times no comparison to the relatively lush and dynamic sound I get from my hifi.
Jan Vigne Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne Dallas, TX Post Number: 12028 Registered: May-04	Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 16:39 GMT . http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html That's a start on what some audio terms mean according to one of the most respected minds in the business. If you wonder what something means, look it up. Place "audio glossary" into a search engine. You'll have several takes on most anything you wonder about, from basic knowledge of what a RCA jack is to what "silvery" describes. It is always difficult to describe what you hear. It is more so if you are afraid of being taken to task because you lack knowledge. However, there's not much reason for lacking knowledge when it is generally just a search engine away. Just as you learn by listening, so too will you learn by reading and finding what is relevant to your search. While, "What is a RCA jack?", is fairly cut and dried the concept of "warmth" is a bit more elusive and made more so by the number of people who simply don't bother to learn how to converse in a language. When you start making this stuff up, you'll eventually get yourself in trouble. To further complicate the matter, terminology such as "bright" will be subjective to what you alone perceive and the conditions surrounding the item you are discussing. If you have a "red" piece of paper, it can only look "red" when viewed under a neutral, or some would say "white", light source. If you alter the light hitting the "red" paper by shifting to a cooler "blue" light source, you will alter the color "red" that you perceive. The same thing happens with audio. If you hear something from a different location or under different circumstances, such as sitting in a different location in a room, your perception of sound will be shifted to reflect the different circumstances under which you make your assumptions. Therefore, while there should be little argument about what is an RCA jack, the concept of what is "warm" can be interpretted differently under various circumstances. In the middle of this are those terms which have distinct meanings but whose definitions can be dependent upon other ideas. In that respect "PRaT" is probably the most misunderstood. It has been used for decades by the "Flat Earthers" to describe what their preferred systems do that others can't manage. However, what the Flat Earth crowd honors also largely allows for the dismissal of many of the values upon which American high end audio has been built. Flat Earthers are willing to devalue "imaging" and "soundstaging" to minor relevance as long as they have their "PRaT". For a generation of American audio buyers, which includes international brands that sell primarily in the US market, "imaging" and "soundstaging" have been hallmarks of "better" gear. Finally, "PRaT" is working its way into the American lexicon just as "imaging" and "soundstaging" are finally finding their way into the house sound of the Flat Earth brands. "Detail retrieval" is coming up fast behind these few qualities as a way to distinguish a superior system. Superior systems have superior "detail retrieval". We all know that. It is what sets your boombox apart from what others listen through. It is what makes your system "sound impressive". Now days virtually all audio advertising eventually gets around to touting their superior "detail retrieval". Over the past few decades as "detail retrieval" pushed audio equipment further toward the "bright", "cool", "analytical" and "harsh" side of the value scale, the new adverb invaraibly tied to superior "detail retrieval" is now "warmth". In order to not fall into the trap of a rising "presence range" trying to achieve a false sense of "detail retrieval" is leading manufacturers to meld "solid state sound" with "tube sound", thereby hopefully reaching a "neutral balance". This seems to be the goal of the current high end audio market. Let's look at JGH's definition of "detail". "'detail': The subtlest, most delicate parts of the original sound, which are usually the first things lost by imperfect components. See 'low-level detail'. Compare 'haze', 'smearing', 'veiling'." Unfortunately, JGH doesn't include a definition of "nuance" or "style". Let's then jump to his definition of "presence range" as this is often tied to the concept audiophiles have of a superior system with excellent "detail retrieval". "'presence range": The lower-treble part of the audio spectrum, approximately 1-3kHz, which contributes to 'presence' in reproduced sound." Dan, you stated, "You said you'd take nuance and style over details. But do details brought to the surface not affect that? I don't see how those are mutually exclusive. I can't help it...when I hear the light strumming of guitars underneath the rhythm section and electric guitar, I love that. It's not just critical listening, but it adds to the experience of the song. I really can't see how it's one or the other and not both." The very simple answer to how they are differentiated is that by adding a rising frequency response in the "presence range", the manufacturer can give the impression of increased "detail", i.e the sound of light guitar strumming that would have been further down in the mix had the power response of the system remained flat. If you were to add an equalizer to your system (parametric eq is preferrable), you could increase the "presence range" by as little as 1.0dB and feel you had improved the "detail retrieval" of the system. If you were to apply a touch of EQ through the frequency range from 500-1kHz, you would increase "clarity" of the speaker system. Goosing the "warmth" of a system implies a gentle rise through the broad range from 200Hz to 600Hz. None of these perceptions of increased "warmth", 'presence" or "detail" have anything to do with how the system operates but merely how the system maintains flat power response. Manufacturers know this also. Now stop and think, where in any of this post have I mentioned live music? I'm not trying to imply you have things wrong, Dan. Nor would I suggest that superior detail retrieval doesn't likely go along with nuance or style. However, merely hearing the guitar is different that hearing how the guitar is being played. Hearing fingers slide across the guitar strings is not the same as hearing how the note is bent or understanding why it is bent. Merely hearing the guitar is not the same as understanding how the guitarist places the note between, in front of or behind the main beat. Hearing the saliva break from the lips of a closely mic'd vocalist is not the same as hearing how the performer holds a note and takes a breath between notes. One relates to your hifi while the other informs you of the performer and the performance - the music. Does that help or simply further confuse? .
Dan L. Bronze Member Username: Kbear Post Number: 45 Registered: Dec-06	Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 16:48 GMT Thanks for that link Jan. I've never seen that glossary before. I've only found a few here on ecoustics that aren't quite as impressive. I'll be bookmarking that page. I think to become very comfortable with these terms will require a bit of study and more listening on my part. Your post does help some. I think you are saying that it just needs to sound like music, it needs to sound right, a system needs to present the song in a way that conveys the sense of emotions that the song was meant to convey. And for that you shouldn't focus to death on soundstaging and things of that nature, but on the music as a whole. If it doesn't sound right then that's a problem, if it does then the system is doing what it should be doing and is likely that it's presenting the material in an accurate fashion. I know you are high on proper matching. I'd agree that it's only logical that proper presentation follows from components that match well. Anyways, hopefully I am somewhat grasping your main point here. Soon I'll be putting some of this into practice by listening to a couple of different systems over the coming months and that way I'll hopefully get a better sense for some of these terms and also a better understanding of how components should be matched.
Jan Vigne Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne Dallas, TX Post Number: 12084 Registered: May-04	Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 18:17 GMT . Here's something I posted on another forum in reply to; "question -- Am I imagining this sounds better? or how not to go crazy." Not so much about matching components but about when to buy that better cartidge/pre amp or new disc damper. "OK, fella, put down the magazines, drop your wallet, sit down and listen and no one will get hurt! My separation of priorities has always been whether I'm after a better music system or a better hifi. If you chase the hifi around the block, it will change and morph into something new every time you open a magazine or even think about walking into an electronics shop. If you are waiting impatiently for the next month's TAS or some other magazine, you're chasing the hifi too much. There will always be something new and something that does what your current system doesn't or at least does it better than your system can manage. That's the message. No offense to anyone at Stereophile but they are pushers. Their job is to make you want something you don't have. What do you suppose the audition is for that job? "Sell me this pencil"? How about, "Sell me this $50k speaker." The audio industry is just like any other luxury goods industry, their objective is to provide you with something you don't have or need and to make you feel better about yourself by possessing something other people don't have or can't acquire. For God's sake don't get caught up in the quest for NOS vacuum tubes. How NOS power triodes are sold is a study in over the top consumerism run amok; long plate, grey plate, black plate, specific time periods of production and specific production plants. If you have the matched pair of black bottom Western Electric 300B tubes that were soldered by Betty with the long red hair on the second Thursday of the fifth month of her third pregnancy before she had a late lunch but after her early morning break ... Audio Nirvana! If you don't ... too bad for you. It will all be packaged up in a polished mahogany laminate box with an extra pair of white cotton gloves since you'll be saving these tubes for when you play only the very best one eyed Shaded Dog, first pressing of whoever's LP was manufactured in such and such a plant on such and such a day that you have searched for the last five years to find with the plant numbers etched on the Side One label by the inscrutable master of pressing plant purity ... Well, you should get the idea. There will always be something you don't have that would make your life better. And then there will be something else. There used to be a distinction between those who had a record collection worth more than their audio components and those who had the opposite. I don't hear much about that distinction now days. Probably because LP remasters can sell for $150. You can buy that new component that allowed the reviewer to hear John Lee Hooker's booted foot slide over the unvarnished 3/4" birch ply just before his trimmed fingernails made contact with the brass wound strings of his National Steel guitar that needed the low "E" string replaced. Or you can simply listen to Hooker. You can listen to Hooker like the British did in the early 1960's through portable record players they carried from house to house. You can think about Clapton and Jagger getting hooked on Hooker despite the pops and snaps and low fidelity and having to flip that 78 every two and one half minutes. And you can follow the line of the music that leads you from here to there and when you get there leaves you breathless and makes you want to hear this man live and in person. Then you can spend your paycheck on a ticket that allows you to cram into the hall with several hundred other Hooker junkies to hear "Him". And you can leave breathless and reliving each stroke of his right hand and the pounding of his foot every time you put that beat up old LP back on the table. You can listen through the noise and the lack of lows and highs and you can conjure up emotions and thoughts you had long ago and hope to have again. You can search out some other recording you know you need to have because it's part of what you need to hear to understand John Lee Hooker. And when you get that record, you can't wait to hear it on whatever system you can afford and you'll call your friends over to hear it with you and to marvel not at the soundstaging but at the music making. IMO Hooker's probably the best analogy to buying a music system. He seldom did more than one take and played as best as he could on each recording. He knew what he had to accomplish and set about doing it in the simplest way possible to achieve the best results possible. He collected his money and then he left the building. The music he made in 1949 is still as powerful as it was then if you listen to the music and not the hifi. You move your feet and follow his path. You wind up exhausted and exhilerated. You wonder what it was like to hear "Him" live. You wonder what it was like to play with "Him". And you want to find that one record that makes sense of Hooker. You hear "Serves You Right to Suffer" and "Decoration Day" and you understand Hooker. It doesn't take a great hifi to do that. Just a great listener. They don't sell lessons in how to listen to Hooker in any electronics shop because that doesn't change with every year's hifi show. Nobody's come up with Hooker mk.II. .
Sem Silver Member Username: Sem New York/Cal... USA Post Number: 757 Registered: Mar-04	Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 20:21 GMT Every once in a while a thread such as this one pops up here and I save it off into a file to read and re-read. What a wealth of information being presented here, it should be required reading for everyone with an id/pw at this site. And although Jan I know you've said a lot of these same things before, for some reason your words on this thread made more sense to me. Thanks for sharing your audio knowledge and experience, and please let me know once you've mastered Veal Picata. Ever since Orlando's Restaurant closed down I have yet to find anyone that can make it as good.
Jan Vigne Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne Dallas, TX Post Number: 12087 Registered: May-04	Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 21:27 GMT . I was a vegetarian for several years and at one point I contributed on a regular basis to PETA - before they went over the edge. The vegetarianism ended due to a personal health situation that resulted from major surgery back in the early 1970's but I never got over the feeling that eating some animals just isn't right. Being a "veal" isn't a pretty life and it ends too soon even for a life of captivity. I know all about "they were put here for a purpose" but eating veal is, for me, like now giving money to PETA. But your welcome to come down and try my marinara sauce or spaghetti ala carbonarra. A couple friends come to my house after they get back from Italy just to have both. .
Christopher Molloy Gold Member Username: Exerciseguy Brooklyn, NY United States Post Number: 1740 Registered: Oct-04	Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 23:27 GMT Now that's scary Jan, I could have written your last post word for word, well everything except it happening in the early 70's.
Nuck Gold Member Username: Nuck Post Number: 9608 Registered: Dec-04	Posted on Thursday, January 17, 2008 - 23:30 GMT I hope I am still in line for the Italian dinner, JV. Veal or not.
Jan Vigne Platinum Member Username: Jan_b_vigne Dallas, TX Post Number: 12088 Registered: May-04	Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 00:04 GMT . Yep.
Sem Silver Member Username: Sem New York/Cal... USA Post Number: 758 Registered: Mar-04	Posted on Friday, January 18, 2008 - 00:14 GMT All, I understand and respect your feelings about not eating veal, I really do. I also didn't intend to hijack this very informative thread. For that I apologize.
freddie Bronze Member Username: Boulderdashcci Canton, Mass USA Post Number: 14 Registered: Apr-07	Posted on Monday, January 21, 2008 - 20:06 GMT I just want to say thanks to you all for taking the time to reply, especially Jan. You've really made me rethink how I hear and interpret sounds. So far I'm really liking the S200 surrounds. Effects that come from them such as a bird chirping or bullets flying by sound very realistic to me. I still have yet to hear the whole system I'd like together (been busy), but I plan on doing that this weekend. I'd also like to find a few other places in my area before my 45 days is up just to sample some other systems, but all in all I think I'm just going to stick with Cambridge if I don't find anything in the same price range. Just wanted to say thanks again for all the info, it made for a very interesting read.
freddie Bronze Member Username: Boulderdashcci Canton, Mass USA Post Number: 15 Registered: Apr-07	Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 22:18 GMT So I'm kind of stuck. I went to Cambridge Soundworks on Sunday to hear the rest of the speakers (M50 bookshelfs, and a MC 305 center, while running with my surrounds). While they were very clear and detailed they lacked a bit with bass. I'm adding a sub, and running a somewhat high crossover frequency, but I still think that bookshelfs should be able to hold their own. The center channel sounded great however, and seemed to reproduce voices realistically. I also took the train down to Providence Monday and went to a dealer located in the historic East Side/College Hill neighborhood, where Brown University is (this is a beautiful section of the city, if you're ever in Providence, go walk around it). At this dealer I auditioned the Paradigm Atom Monitor and the Paradigm Mini Monitor. These speakers both had amazing bass to them (I thought there was a sub running when the guy first turned them on), and while clear, had a bit of a flat sound to them. While they were very musical, the highs didn't seem quite as pronounced as the Cambridges to me. Still, I really liked them. The part that really holds me back from pulling the trigger on these is that the bipole surrounds cost $425 for the pair, which I have a hard time spending for something that doesn't handle a lot of the soundtrack. He also had 3 of the matching center channel (CC-170?) for $150 open box, and he said they'd be there a while because most people buy the bigger centers, so I do have a bit of time to think this over. I didn't get to hear the center because they weren't hooked up, but was told they sounded very similar to the Atoms. What about mixing surrounds? The guy there said it would be fine if they were far enough away from the front/center, but I'm still a bit worried about it. The price quotes I got were $149/each for the Atoms, $199/each for the Mini, and like I said $150 for the center open box. I'm going to call a few more dealers to see if I can do better. However I'm still not sure which brand I'm going with.
David Mitchell Silver Member Username: Dmitchell Ottawa, Ontario Canada Post Number: 605 Registered: Feb-07	Posted on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 - 22:46 GMT Should be fine having surrounds that don't match with your fronts. I have Monitor Audio RS6 for fronts with the matching center, but I kept my Paradigm Atoms for my surrounds. The handle movie effects quite well.
freddie Bronze Member Username: Boulderdashcci Canton, Mass USA Post Number: 16 Registered: Apr-07	Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2008 - 21:54 GMT I ended up finding a set of Cambridge Soundworks Newton M80s (in the awesome mahogany finish) on Craigslist for $140, I just couldn't pass them up. They're in perfect condition. I like them so far, I haven't really listened critically yet, but they do sound good to me. Drum reproduction seems really accurate. They do sound a bit harsh in the high end (I had the treble boosted on the receiver because my old speakers were so bad, though) and lacking in bass somewhat (they're far better than what I had, I just don't think they could do well without a sub unless set up just right), but I've read they're picky about positioning and I just put them up on my shelf for now. I haven't really dialed them in on my receiver yet, either. For $140 though, I can't complain about anything. I think I like the Paradigms more, but I do like these. If worst comes to worst I'm sure I could make my money back (and then some) by relisting them on Craigslist. But, I'm happy with my purchase so far. I'll post some more detailed comments about them after listening to more than 15 minutes of music.

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Need opinions - Cambridge Soundworks, Wharfedale, Klipsch?

Main Forums

Forum Help

Follow Us