Well, the biggest contributor to warmth/brightness/detail etc is the amplifer in my opinion. Of course all components are linked and alter the sound but the amp is the main player. You can make a warm amp brighter by using different speakers and the same is true for a bright amp but you are never going to totally alter the trademark sound of your amp.
Thanks for your reply. That is what I thought but still didn't know for sure. You are from the UK so you may know, are Missions generally known as detailed or warm? I only have my system as a point of reference. When I bought them I did because they were clear or detailed. I am just trying to buy an appropriate amp.
Missions are generally known to be warm and smooth, with prominent bass. Like many speaker manufacturers though, their ranges differ and some are bright sounding. A lot of modern speakers tend to be more detailed these days. Which Missions do you have and what sort of a sound are you after? Maybe we can direct you towards a particular amp.
I have the 700 series including 704 towers, 701 rears and 70c2 center - they are a value speaker line with glass composite cones, soft cloth (or silk I don't know) tweeters.
I like clarity (accoustic music, clear vocals, high hat, etc). When I tested all the speakers in my price range that being base model Athena, Polk, Paradigm, Energy they in my opinion sounded the clearest. I was pleasantly suprised with your answer regarding that they are warm and smooth. It was like I found out that I may have the best of both worlds, both detail and warmth. Perhaps the clarity/detail is coming from my Yammy RXV-596. The imaging is decent in 2 channel though I have heard better at the retailers.
I am looking at moving to separates. Frist step is a multi channel amp, preferably 7 channel. My 596 has preouts (a bargain at its price range) so I'll use it as a processor for a while. The 596 only has 100*2 in stereo so I would like some more oomph considering the 704's are rated to 250watts at 8 ohms. I like music/movies 60/40. I'll listen to cd's in 2 channel and multi channel in multi channel (i.e. no "down mix" to 2 channel).
Thanks for all your input. Since the Missions are Britsh they are lessor known in North America. I don't know many people who know about them or even hear of them for that matter.
Hi Mr Speeed, I don't profess to know much about multi-channel amps I'm afraid - not my forte. I'm stereo through & through. There are a few guys on here who know their stuff in that region - try questioning 'Hawk' for instance. If you start a new post put his name in the subject box and he'll pick it up.
It sucks to have a Rotel heart with an Outlaw budget. I've heard Rotel but simply don't have the wallet. I think Outlaw's 770 is a 7*200 which would be more than enough power (i'd have to get new rears/surrounds) on a "reasonable" budget. Even though it is probably the best bang for the buck I don't know if it would match with my Missions. I might have to settle for a higher end 5 channel and then add the two later. Thats the only way I could even think of Rotel, Krell, etc.
Wait, wait, wait! Don't even compare Rotel with Krell! Krell amps are on a stage 10-15 times ABOVE Rotel. So as Rotel is something like 2-4 times above NAD. Quality speaking, of course!
Dunno mate, not so sure about that. Rotel are different to Nad, not necessarily better. So are you saying Rotel's RA01 beats anything Nad make, despite being the bottom of their range? Rotel sound different to Nad and not everyone likes their sound, same goes the other way too. I think they're on a level myself, quality-wise.
Nope! When you (anyone) say the "x" brand is 2 levels above "Y" brand, it necessarely means you're comparing for example, 2 equal powered power amps from 2 different brands, and then you can apply this to the different power/price levels within those 2 brands. It's the only way you can fairly compare brands, why? Because each brand has its own production methods, and the same filosofy applies to all models. However, it may happen that a certain amp from a certain brand comes out to the market above it's "level average", or below... As far as I know (from listening), Rotel has a reputation of maintaining a certain price/quality ratio, with the exception of its top amps (Michi line, for example) being way above its price, meaning a way bigger quality/price ratio. And the difference between Rotel and NAD gets bigger (to the Rotel side, in my humble opinion) as you go up the scale. So, if you compare entry level amps, you may even not notice a difference, depending on the speakers, room size, disposition of the furniture, furniture's type and so on, but when you compare 2 2x200W RMS amps from them, you'll find the Rotel with more dynamics (which is not the same as brightness), speed, bass depth... Have I expressed myself correctly?
For example, the former Audiolab, now TagMcLaren's surround receivers used to be a step above Rotel's surround receivers, until the latest RSX 1055/1065 appeared! I heard them feeding B&W's and Mission's, and these new Rotel receivers got better than Tag's ones, so I reckon Rotel has upgrade its production's quality specs...
So rotel is 2 to 4 times above nad and krell is 10-15 times above rotel... Your feelings on nad are based primarily as I read upon your listening to the 218, and hey whatever you feel, great!!! Remember this, many feel a wee bit different about the nad vs rotel comparision.. How did you rate these things, what is your criteria??...So halcro is a gazillion times above rotel and a google above nad, right???
So any Rotel amp is 2-4 times better than the equivalent Nad in the same price/power bracket? I think you should just say that you prefer the Rotel sound to Nad, period. I don't think the Rotel sound is better, twice as good or even four times as good as Nad - it's just DIFFERENT. Nad is warm and 'creamy' whilst Rotel is brighter and punchier (generally speaking.) Each to their own. I've heard some nice systems with a bit of Rotel kit in there so I'm certainly not anti-Rotel by any means. I do prefer the Nad sound in my own system though. Not to say I'll never touch Rotel in the future.....
Unbridled,
Nice of you to chip-in mate! What did you end-up buying, the pre/power or an integrated?
Well, yes you're right when you say it's also a matter of taste, but has I said earlier in most of my posts, "in my opinion" is also a matter of taste the same way the furniture of the listening room messes with it. I would say a glass based furniture is desirable for a NAD based system, to enhance what "I see as a lack of it". In that same order, you (I) could say wooden furniture would be desirable for a Rotel based system. Since I give much importance to the detail issue (what you in your opinion could call "brightness"), it's only natural I rate brands like that, the same way you would rate those brands exactly the opposite way, 'cause you give much importance to the warmth (what I could call "the lack of it") aspect of a system. We both have very different opinions on what a system should be, which is why I always recomend the listening before buying, preferably at the listening room to be (garage, diner room, bedroom...), 'cause different people have different tastes, sensitivity. Happy to see that you're one those who can form an opinion by yourself, and I'm are here to give my opinion, so as you... Cheers, enjoy!
But yes, the amplifier is the most resonsible for the character of the sound and I've experienced that: I heard system with a Krell FBP series amp feeding the first series of the Mission's 761 having a Sony 20-bit cd player as a source, and it sounded light years better than the same source amplified by a Rotel RB990BX (same as mine), which was feeding a set of ProAc Response 1.5. Well, the Krell is something about 15 times the price of the Rotel! So yes the main character is the amp's! Enjoy!
the amp discussions have been right on with everyone giving respectable oppinnions of what they hear. without going to far and upsetting someone."good job guys" that can be hard to do.
and it sounds like most agree amps at simalur price points have equal value but sound different. with the more expensive ones differentiating themselves from one another."which i agree with"
but in my oppinnion you will have more of a difference in speakers. "bright , laid back , full" than you will with amps.
amps are a lot closer in sound than speakers are. to me!
so mr. speed you are doing the right thing with trying to figure out which amp has the correct sound for you for your speakers.
and your missions to me are a tad on the bright side.
so if i was pairing them up i would look at. nad,marantz,parasound and maybe h/k.
now in my experience i see b&k and rotel as being fairly neutrel meaning not really adding anything so if you like the way the speakers sound themselves. being a little bright or detailed as you call it. you might like one of those 2.
but if you feel the need to taim them somewhat you may want to consider one of the others i mentioned.
I agree that speakers have a BIG part to play in the brightness/warmth equation but I also think that amps play a big part too. I've been reading elsewhere how people think most amps sound the same. I can honestly say that if I plug 3 amps into my system they will all sound different. I went through a period of testing different amps because I knew I was happy with my source and speakers (I had an amp that made everything sweet but it broke, sob) but so many missed the sound I was after and I was very surprised at how different they all were. In the end I'm still not 100% happy (are we ever?) but I'm almost there....
Firstly I think the Missions are here to say. Lesson #1 don't buy speakers with your wife and say to her, "Speakers can last for 20 years!". Trust me, it is a hard sell to buy new ones after that.
You've all made some great points and suggestions. Some say speakers, some say amps. As a non audiofile I would have immediately thought speakers only because I see speakers of different sizes, material, cross overs, etc (I'm not really talking about a 2 way bookself versus a 3 way floorstander). Being a newbie I really didn't understand the "charachter" of an amp would matter as much as it does. So regardless "which came first the speaker or the amp" the amp really has more to do with it than I thought. Again, a big thanks.
I've always run my Missions with a Yamaha (and now understand that a lot of people would run in horror at the combo) and never found them bright until I recently played some DVD-A's(could have been the source but all else being equal it was probably the speaker/amp combo).
So, I will take the suggestion of warmer amps and give them a try in my existing room containing my furniture and see if a warmer amp suits my ear. I now have a better idea of what amps people consider warm/neutral/bright.
It also appears generally people will try to balance out a bright speaker with a warm amp and vice versa. Thus I would presume that the ideal is a neutral sound. What is neutral then? If I'm not in the recording studio when they lay down the track then how am I supposed to know?
deciding what a speaker or amp or anything else sounds like can be difficult.the longer you pay attention to what you are hearing the better you understand. and the more different pieces of the equipment you listen to "intently" will help you.
their are very few speakers and electronics that are neutrel.
they are usually on one side of the fence or the other. so like you said generally people try to mate the opposites to basically create neutrel so to speak.
neutrel can be very difficult to hear. basically neutrel doesn't add or subtract from the original but like you said "how do i know the original".
neutrel. would be like listening to something you know is bright and something known to be warm with the neutrel sounding somewhere in between them. not an easy thing to do.telling bright/warm or anything used to describe audio is much easier to hear than neutrel.
sun king. as i said in my post i too think electronics have a sound of their own.but feel speakers have more /greater differences than the electronics do. that's all.
basically i feel if you don't like the sound of a speaker no electronics "short of eq" are going to change your oppinion.
so the way i look for systems is pick the speakers you like than get according electronics. now i'm saying this is the way i do it. not saying everyone should do it this way. but if you put more emphasys on your speakers then electronics this way makes sense.
and if you generally prefer the sound of certain electronics than get your electronics first and match the speakers accordingly.
either way works, i just feel speakers first and the electronics second is easier.
but as long as in the end you reach the same point it doesn't really matter how you got their aye!
How to know the original? Well did you ever attended to a concert either live or theater? Did they make a recording of it, like say "Queenn - Live at Wembley"? Did you like some much sometimes you remember the sound of it? If you're this lucky, any piece of equipment will be more neutral the more it reminds you of that concert
Often it's the fault of the cd though and not the equipment. A live recording isn't necessarily going to sound like the actual event even on the best hi-fi in the world....if it was mixed/mastered/produced by an idiot (as lots of cd's are in my experience) :-)
Yes, but I always think in terms of "good recordings", with a minimum acceptable "quality level" that can vary from person to person. Taking from that I can also say a good vinyl recording on a good (around 800 €) deck (for example a Rega Planar 3 with RB300 arm and "Exacta" needle) will beat any good cd recording on any good cd player till around 4000 €. Therefore, one must have some good recordings of whatever kind, and at least one bad recording! Why? In my opinion, the better the equipment, the more revealing it will be, which means the good recordings will sound better and the bad recordings will sound worst. Maybe if Mr Speeed tells us its likings, someone at the forum could point him out some recordings. I can point in vinyl, Robert Palmer's "Don't explain" and in cd, "Eagles live" and "Friday night in San Francisco" with Al di Meola, Paco de Lucia..., are good recordings for testing equipment, there are others...
Yes, good point. I have heard piles and piles of cd's that are recorded badly yet very few vinyl LP's. There's technology for you.
Mr. V
Unregistered guest
Posted on
Warmth viz. Detail...
Do what I did: experiment, mix and match, demo, and buy what works best for you.
I have a dedicated home theater, and 3 separte systems optimized for music (bedroom, listening room, and garage...why not have great tunes when wrenching?)
My main musical genre is house and trance music, which can be a bit edgy.
My 2 main systems are built around Conrad Johnson amps, which are warm and smooth; I demoed Krell, Levinson and others and found this works best...for me.
Of course, the same holds true for digital gear, cables, speakers...you should demo, and pick what works best for you.
FWIW, main system:
Conrad Johnson Evolution 2000 amp Audio Research LS 2 preamp Theta DS Pro Basic III DAC w/ Theta Data Basic transport Aerial 10T speakers Cabling by Music Advancement Co. and Jenna Labs