Like

Archive through February 08, 2005

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Yes, the jumpers are generally crap. I would take a bit of the Kimber to make a jumper and hear even more.

Or:

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/120922.html




 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1346
Registered: Aug-04
Thanks Rick,

Nice to know I'm not crazy - or at least, if I am, I'm in good company LOL!

Cheers backatcha.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1347
Registered: Aug-04
Jan,

Crossing posts. Yeah, I thought about the Kimber but that meant stripping 96 wires - maybe when I get another wire stripper - one that works! I spent half an afternoon stripping them with nail scissors just for the speaker connects after discovering the 'brand new' stripper gadget bought especially for the job was faulty.

It was the post from "Goose" on that thread that gave me the urge to remove the jumpers.

Thanks - more proof I'm not completely mad - yet!

 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1348
Registered: Aug-04
Jan,

If I was to try bi-wiring, would splitting the Kimber (2 x 4 strands) be suitable or would I need to use 2 lengths of fully braided cable - being that the eight strands make an aggregate of 10 guage wire?

And whatever is best - would it be another impronement over replacing the jumper straps with the wire or is it a case of try it to find out?


 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 562
Registered: Oct-04
My Rantz: Yep - when I took off the gold "plates" and substituted Blue Jeans Cable 10AWG wire, the sound DID improve - seemed to make less of a "switch" between woofer and tweeter. I took off the wire, put it back on, etc. a number of times. Finally determined that, if it was just my imagination, then so be it! (grin)

Have to put any thoughts of further stereo on the back burner awhile. Took the beloved Camry into the shop today - and got the bad news that it needs $1,400 USD of work as soon as possible. Oil pump, gaskets, etc. Sigh. With 145,000 miles on her, the ole gal is beginning to show her gray hair. Mer says we need to think about trading up to a "newer" used car - ours is now worth only about $4,000 - and the more we put in, the less we get out. Like real life. . .

Anyway - the guy who is "supposed" to be sending my B& W speakers said tonight that FedEx was "supposed" to pick them up today - but did not. So - he'll try again tomorrow - he says. I'm beginning to smell something very ripe in Denmark here, guyz! If he didn't have such a good feedback on Audiogon I'd be super-suspicious of this guy!

If any of you does business with "Amrik" on Audiogon - be sure to look up his feedback first. IMHO only. He is probably totally honest, but these delays are making me nervous.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 51
Registered: Jan-05
Old Dogs,

The Spendors are here. The first thing I noticed out of the box is they are much smaller than I expected for floor standers. They are 31"h x 6 7/8 w x 9 7/8 d. Very well built and with a nice elegance to them.

Plugged them in and put on Aimee Mann's "Lost in Space". Well, the first thing I had to do was turn off the subwoofer since it was pretty clear the Spendors were providing some low ends the B&W's didn't. The speakers had a very nice natural sound.

Then, I made a mistake. I decided to do a side by side comparison with the B&W's. So, I brought the B&W's and the stands out of the office into the living room and setup the comparison. It was a little cumbersome because I only had one set of cables ready and so ended having to switch the cables between the speakers instead of doing the A-B switch on the amp.

Remember how I had oscillated between the B&W's and the MA's when I first got the McIntosh amp? It was a difficult decision because both speakers had similar characteristics. I eventually went with the B&W's because I felt they offered a deeper soundstage when paired with the McIntosh. Well, the difference in characteristics between the B&W's and the Spendors is very pronounced. And, I'm wishing I had my money back. :-(

It's a little confusing. The Spendors have gotten excellent reviews and I agree they do sound very good. As advertised, they are very balanced from top to bottom. And, I think I read one review in which they were better received than B&W's. And, given that, it makes me wonder if I really don't know what a "good" speaker should sound like. Because I like the B&W's better - and, it's not close. Don't get me wrong. They do sound great. But, I don't prefer them to the B&W's. At least not yet.

The Spendors have 2 woofers and a tweeter. The woofers are smaller than the woofer in my B&W. The two smaller woofers don't equal B&W's woofer in my opinion. Perhaps they might be a little faster or tighter and likely cover more low end than the B&W's. But, if you have a good sub as I do (REL Strata III), that becomes less of an issue.

I listened to a variety of recordings including the Also Sprach Zarathustra (just the 2001 intro), Patsy Cline "Your Cheatin' Heart", Mahalia Jackson "Walk in Jerusalem", Jack Johnson "Bubble Toes", Aimee Mann, Miles Davis "Kind of Blue" and in every instance, the Spendors just sounded smaller. Natural sounding but small. The B&W's were louder, bigger, more open - and sounded natural too.

Getting back to what I said earlier about not knowing whether I can even tell what a good speaker sounds like. When I first bought the B&W's, I auditioned them in my home (I had to pay for them but had a 10 day period in which they could be returned) against a pair of Linn Speakers. The Linn speakers were very similar to the Spendors in size - except they only had one, larger woofer. Anyway, my next door neighbor listened to the speakers and said he preferred the Linn while I preferred the B&W's. He thought the Linn's had a tighter sound and didn't reveal as much in the high end as the B&W. In his mind, that was a good thing. Now, I preferred the B&W because I thought they had a more open sound in part because they revealed more in the high end.

Sorry this is so long (and rambling). I've always heard that "good" speakers will reveal the flaws in your hardware and recordings. When I listen to the B&W's, they are very open sounding to me. The high ends are very detailed. I think that comes from the tweeter being mounted on top of the speaker. Part of this "openness" I hear is what might be described as "hiss" or "static" - except to me it comes across more as the room ambience or air - kind of like older recordings have more tape hiss than newer ones but it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the music. Does that make sense? Anyway, I don't hear that with the Spendors. So my question is whether that is good or bad? To me, the music sounds like it is coming out of a box - similar to the feeling I had with the Linn's.

Larry, when you get your B&W's (think positive thoughts) they will blow your Polks out of the water. It will be a night and day difference and I think you'll prefer the B&W's. I knew I already had a good pair of speakers in the B&W's. I also knew the Spendors are more of a lateral move and that any improvement would be subtle. But, I didn't expect this.

I've heard it does take close to 100 hours to open up the Spendors and the dealer said these have less than 20 hours on them. So, maybe they will evolve. I'm listening to them now. They sound good. Polite.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1349
Registered: Aug-04
SM

"They sound good. Polite."

Who wants good? Who wants polite? What a shame after spending your money and waiting with eager anticip . . . ation to get good and polite. B&W's are hard to beat once you find appeal in their sound. Maybe the Spendors will open up after a while, but if the sound is that far off appealing to you compared with the B&W's I doubt even that will do the trick for you - I may be wrong, I am often :-)

Be sure to experiment with positioning (as if you need telling) and even though they are floorstanders, try short stands - I did with my JBL's (mainly because of a furnishing situation) but the extra elevation did, in fact, make a difference. I hope they eventually work out for you or, that you might get a refund or sell them without too much of a loss if they don't soon party well.


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
Rantz - It is a cut and try situation with the jumper. You can begin with just a single strand of Kimber between the posts if you'd like. The tweeter isn't looking for high current so bulk in the cable isn't needed. The construction of the Kimber is important and the braiding is the key to the construction. That said, I would try whatever is the easiest to accomplish. If a single strand sounds like it's headed in the right direction then you can go from there. If the single strand sounds like the wrong direction then the course to pursue is an easy choice. Since this is a point where a small amount of work can make a noticeable difference, I would try several different types of wires as jumpers. Or go to the biwire.


Ghia - Give the Spendors some time, things change. You may prefer the B&W's in the long run. When you make the comparison you should make certain the volume you hear from each pair is the same, not the same volume setting on the amplifier. You will always pick the louder speaker as the better speaker. Some speakers do reveal the quality of components in front of them, but that is typically a speaker that is asking a lot of the amplifier. Some speakers make it easier to detect the changes in cables and so forth, but that isn't necessarily the mark of a good speaker. The better the speaker the more accessible the music and the more enjoyable the experience. Any component should allow you to listen to more recordings, not fewer recordings.

https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/118117.html




 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2172
Registered: Dec-03
SimplyMcIntosh I think it's well documented my preference to a speaker
that is very detailed and maybe even a little on the bright side so I can
understand where you come from when a speaker is not.

To me the terms dull and unlively come to mind.

As we have heard not everyone has the same taste nor the same hearing.
I also am a fan of most B&W speakers I've heard.
Open and detailed plus full bodied is how I would describe them.

I also think there is something to your point of.
"knowing what a speaker should sound like"
But in the end "you" have to like what you hear.

And yes many speakers will open up after break in.
So give them a good couple weeks of extended playing with varying volumes.
Then revaluate them again. One good thing should be is they seem to sell
rather quickly on the open market if you should decide to sell them.

I'm sure rick could tell you what to expect after breakin.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 447
Registered: Feb-04
SMc,

Jan and Kegger hit it right on the head. It's not uncommon for speakers to first sound horrible right out of the box. I'd put at least 100 hours on them and then try the A-B test with the B&Ws again.

When I was looking at Spendors, the s5e in particular, I was told by the audio store guy that they need a lot of power to sound their best. He actually discouraged me from auditioning them when I told him that I'd be using a 40wpc amp. The Spendors may not be as efficient as the B&Ws, which would explain the latter sounding "louder" and sounding better with the Mac. When you test the speakers again after the Spendors break in, try listening to both at the same low volume level. A good test for speakers is how much detail they provide with the volume set low. The speakers that reveal more of the music at the same low volume level is usually the better designed speaker. Having said that, your ears (and brains) are the final judge.

Best of luck and don't give up the Spendors just yet.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 52
Registered: Jan-05
Thank you, Gentlemen. Good points all. I will definitely give them a chance to break-in and will look at ways to reposition them within the limited options of the room.

Kegger, you are right, the B&W's are also full-bodied. That was very evident when listening to the drums in the Also Sprach Zarathustra and the rhythm section of Jack Johnson's band.

2c, Jan, I was surprised that I wasn't getting the same level of volume out of the speakers. They have similar sensitivity ratings. The Spendors are rated 87db (1w@1m) and the B&W's are 88db (2.83v @ 1m) - perhaps the second set of numbers make the difference? The Spendor's amp rating is 15w-200 (8ohms) while the B&W is 50w-200w (8 ohms). The Mac is rated 75w (8 ohms). This will make more sense to Jan, but the volume difference is equal to one green notch (and maybe 1 1/2) on the MA6200.

So, I'm taking the B&W's out of the living room and will continue with the break-in of the Spendors. Elevating them may be a good thing. I found that the tweeter is approximately 7 inches below ear level.

Off to work.

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 563
Registered: Oct-04
SMAC - hey, at least you HAVE your new speakers! (grin) I'm still sitting here twisting my thumbs into liddle knots. The seller is blaming FedEx for failure to pick up - but. . .

One thing I've noted in several Spendor reviews is that they (according to the reviewers) "roll off slowly above 10kHz" - that might explain some of what you hear as "polite?" They apparently do not go as "flat" as the B&Ws into the far upper ranges.

Heck - I only think I know what I read - and what the better-informed on this forum tell me.

If my Polk experience is anything like your Spendor experience - they WILL sound much better after about a week of "working."
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
"87db (1w@1m) and the B&W's are 88db (2.83v @ 1m)"

What you are seeing is simply a difference in how to state the amount of voltage across the speaker terminals to produce the amplitude given in dB. Over a strict, simple 8 Ohm resistive load, 2.83v will be equivalent to 1 watt. If the resistance dips or rises, the amount of voltage required to amount to 1 watt will also vary according to Ohm's Law. How the number is expressed in the specification sheet is inconsequential in this instance. What is probably of more consequence is the actual impedance swing of the two speakers. You are probably hearing the amplifier working through the X-over which presents an impedance load on the amp instead of a simple resistive load.

1 dB is enough to influence your choice in speakers; it is, alas, a trick every audio salesperson learns quickly. Often it is difficult to evenly match two speakers due to the differences in their frequency response. Speakers that emphasize (or roll off) certain areas in their frequency band width will give the impression of widely varying volumes when compared to one another. If you have an SPL meter you can use it to balance the volumes sufficiently. Test tones are the best choice with a meter, use several over a wide sweep and get the best match possible. Put an emphasis on matching the midrange. Even without a meter you can use a simple vocal to get a good approximation. "The Trinity Seesions" would be a good start here. Match the vocal as closely as you can and proceed from there with your comparison.

I disagree with 2c somewhat on the importance of low volume testing. While low level listening is important, the problem with that approach is there are too many variables in how a speaker might be used to justify judging primarily at low volumes. You want to know whether the speaker changes its character as the volume is changed. Low volume shows a lot about the ability of the speaker to articulate the music when only a small voltage is present, but it won't tell you about other factors in the speaker's character. Do listen at low volumes, high volumes and, most importantly, the volume you normally use. Make certain the speaker will perform over a wide range of requirements before you make your decision.

Try tilting the front of the speaker back slightly to aim the tweeter at your ears. Keep the speaker well supported so it doesn't rock. Then you can try a stand if you feel the need.


 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 788
Registered: Dec-03
SMAC,

I don't know of any speakers that sound "right" out of the box. I would allow a minimum of 100 hours break-in before doing any serious evaluation. I had the advantage of the former owner of my S3/5's doing most of the work. They bloomed while I was listening to them in about 10 hours. My Ohm Micro Talls on the other hand, required around 700 hours. They sounded horrible for the first few hundred hours.

I just don't buy the claim made by the dealer, that they need a lot of power. The Spendor, like any fine speaker wants good clean power. The Mac, as you know is as good as it gets, and with 75watts should dive a 87Db speaker to levels any sane person would want to listen. My 3/5's are 84Db, and with my 70 watt 6100, I listen at the 12 o'clock position.

I look forward to your evaluation after break in.

Cheers!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
I'm sure SM has already noticed the 12 O' Clock position on the Mac is not the same as that position on most other volume controls. The Mac has a linear taper volume control where most other units use a log scale taper which will place more volume differentiation in the first half of the volume control's range. The Mac's VC will produce constant, incremental changes across its entire range. This linear scale offers more consistent adjustment across its entire range and greater control at the positions beneath 12 O'Clock than a log scale control. The log scale is often used to give greater amounts of variation from input voltage of the sources. Mac, of course, assumed you would buy all Mac components with matched output levels. Start saving up!


 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 791
Registered: Dec-03
At the 12 O'Clock position, I wonder how much of the 70 watts I am actually using? I am anxious to try the Jolida's 20 watts with an 84Db speaker. I still think I should get listening levels as high as 93-94Db. Yes! No?
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 448
Registered: Feb-04
Rick, I've heard a 25wpc Jolida amp driving Magnepan 1.6 speakers and it sounded pretty good. I was surprised, because I've heard Maggies require a lot of power. SMc's Mac might have enough power to drive the Spendors effectively, but it may not be enough to maximize the performance of those speakers.

As mentioned by Jan, a speaker's sensitivity rating isn't necessarily indicative of its efficiency. I've listened to 89dB, 8 ohm speakers that were relatively difficult to drive because of the large impedance curve, going down to less than 4 ohms. Compare that to a 89dB, 4 ohm speaker with a relatively flat impedance curve throughout the frequency range. The latter might actually be an easier load for an amp.

Jan, I wasn't suggesting that the low-level volume test was the only or best test. In my mind, choosing the speakers that sound most musical is the real test. But how do you quantify that? I suggested the low-level test, because it really tells you a lot about the quality of the speakers and is often ignored by people auditioning speakers. How many people actually try this compared to those who crank up the volume during their listening test? I think this is a good test for all audio equipment as far as it's ability to present the details of the recording in a coherent, musical way. If it can do this at a low volume level, there's a good chance it can present music in a fuller way at higher volumes.

As you know, listener fatigue results from the brain constantly filling in or correcting information it receives from the sound system. If that system presents all the information fully and correctly, one can just enjoy the music for hours on end.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 449
Registered: Feb-04
Just for fun, here are the measurements on the SMc's Spendors: http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/904spendor/index4.html

Interesting points: the measured sensitivity is around 82-83 dB, not even close to the 87dB claimed by the manufacturer. Also, the impedance ranges from 3.9 to 9 ohm. Given this John Atkinson states that the Spendors should be an easy load on amps (???). I don't know if that's any more objective than his conclusion based on his measurements that the speakers would provide a "big-hearted sound" (?) The old BHS factor. Maybe the H shouldn't be there.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 792
Registered: Dec-03
2c,

I had a pair of 1.6's before getting the Ohms and Spendors. The claim that the Maggies need mega power is not true. They just want good, clean power. My JD102B arrived today, so I'll let everyone know how 20watts of tube power drives the S3/5's.

Cheers!
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 450
Registered: Feb-04
Rick, yeah I found that about the Maggies. I've discovered there's a lot of misinformation perpetuated in the audio world. Another lesson learned is that new doesn't necessarily mean improved as far as audio equipment.

Anyhoo, looking forward to your report on the Jolida amp. I hope it meets your expectations.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Asimo

Post Number: 47
Registered: Apr-04
SimplyMcIntosh

This was an excellent review better than many professional articles in the audio magazines and the net.
Your two speakers are from the top of the audiophile list. I know the B&W 603 and B&W CDM7 they both sound fantastic to me I preferred the less expensive one the 603 because it was more soft.
I did not listen to the Spendor but I know it is one of the best British speakers for classical music and probably for other sorts of music as well.
I do not believe that a speaker needs 100 hours or four month to open. I think that you can feel immediately if you like a speaker or not. I do think that it is very important where the speaker is located in the room and how the speaker integrates with the room acoustic.
Different sensitivity of speakers can cause some confusion at the beginning but after you are aware and learn to adjust volume it will not change your opinion.
Try to listen to different instruments like solo piano solo violin, or solo oboe, clarinet, trumpet, check a female voice, an opera aria is very good for the test then a grand opera or one of Mahler glorious big symphonies and don't forget a jazz sessions.
Try to find how each speaker behave at low volume, very important for late night listening.
I remember from your past audio experiments cycles that you always came to the right conclusion and chose the better audio equipment I am very curious to find which speaker out of the two you will decide to live with.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1350
Registered: Aug-04
Old Dogs,

Okay, you all have much more experience than me with audio, but I find it difficult to understand how a speaker's 'characteristics' may change so dramatically after 'break in' that it could change a listener's clear preference from one speaker over another. I do understand that a speaker will 'open up' over an initial time period and that time period may differ with various types/brands, but if it's characteristics could alter so much, then wouldn't that make choosing speakers a very daunting task to begin with? Wouldn't this 'break in' phenonemon be good reason for manufacturers to pre-run their speakers before they reach point of sale? I don't doubt you good people, I just find the 'amount of difference ' difficult to comprehend.

Jan,

I ended up bi-wiring the speakers with the existing Kimber cable using 3 strands for the low end and one for the high per pole. Sounds marvellous - it didn't alter the top end improvement already achieved, but seems to have added a bit more fullness to the the bottom.

 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 451
Registered: Feb-04
Rantz, see attached article for a simple answer: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03163/191323.stm
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1351
Registered: Aug-04
Two Cents,

Thank you for the info, but that does not answer my real question it just repeats what has already been stated here. The buyer in that article listened in a shop and with different components so the same speakers in his home environment could well sound very different. I'm am not doubting the fact that some people hear something quite different once a speaker has been given a workout over time and 'opened up' I am merely not comprehending how they could sound SO different.

But I am doubting that the answer will be simple :-)

Cheers
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 53
Registered: Jan-05
Thanks for all the feedback re: the Spendors. There's much with which to catch up tonight.

What you are seeing is simply a difference in how to state the amount of voltage across the speaker terminals to produce the amplitude given in dB. Over a strict, simple 8 Ohm resistive load, 2.83v will be equivalent to 1 watt. If the resistance dips or rises, the amount of voltage required to amount to 1 watt will also vary according to Ohm's Law

Thank you for that explanation. I'm quite familiar with Murphy's Law but will need to read up on Ohm's Law. I should probably try to learn more about the measurements and specifications. As these posts today indicate, there's more to the eye than just reading about what the specs are and what they can mean and how they translate to the "ear".

It does make sense to me that how "loud" a speaker plays is not a measurement of its value. With the B&W's, I'm used to setting the MA6200 volume at either 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock. With the Spendors it looks like it will be either 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock. I noticed if I set it to 1 o'clock, it triggers Power Guard during certain voice peaks.

I left the system running today and I do believe the break-in period will help. I remember the B&W's continued to sound better with use. The Spendors don't sound "horrible" - I didn't mean to convey that at all. In fact, I would likely be raving about them had I not done A-B the comparison. I can imagine someone else listening with me last night might have preferred the Spendors and described them as more refined and cleaner than the B&W's. They would probably be right.

The only out and out disappointment to me was the delivery of Patsy Cline's "Your Cheatin' Heart" - the Spendors didn't present the energy of the performance in my opinion. Particularly, at the 1:30 mark of the song til the end, it just seems lifeless. In fact, through the whole song, Patsy's voice is exceptionally presented but, the band seems to disappear. When I listen to the performance through the B&W's (or even my Sennheiser headphones) the band's energy is more lively.

MR,
Thanks for the feedback about the bi-wiring and upgrading the speaker cables. Once I get the Spendors settled, I plan to get the Mapleshade cables and think I will try the bi-wiring too.

Well, gotta commute home to start tweaking the speakers! Thanks for all the suggestions in regards to how to listen and test them. More later.

 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1352
Registered: Aug-04
SM,

I hope those Spendors do 'open up' and offer you the listening pleasure they are renowned for. But, as you say, we all have varying tastes and they may or may not end up 'doing it' for you.

Yes the cable upgrade and tweaks made quite an agreeable difference - I suggest to all, without going to ridiculous expense, it's very worthwhile experimenting in this area. Thanks Jan for the advise.



 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2173
Registered: Dec-03
For the most part rantz it's about how much of a change constitutes a big change
for you compared to someone else. And the parts being used.

I've built and tweaked many speakers/xovers and theres certain things I listen
for that when I first started out sometimes drove me crazy. I'd get the speakers
where I'd want them and after a while to me they were all jacked up again because
I didn't allow for breakin before trying to finalize the cabinet stuffing or xover.
Then I would have to start all over.

So to one person the sibilance may be to overwhelming for them at first and
if that was the final result may absolutly hate that speaker but if a certain
wire/driver/capacitor/coil was used that changed enough to where it kept the
detailed high end but the sibilance was gone then for that person it might
be a drastic change.

Or if the speaker had a boxy sound! after breakin the midrange stuffing may settle
and the hardness of the kevlar driver may start to flex better and give you a
more open sound verses the hard driver and unsettled packing in the cabinet.

There are many many things in the speaker that change with use and certain
materials change more than others. If all these things change and don't
counteract one another you could get a substantial change.

It all depends on parts used to build the speaker.
And some manufacturers do burn in there drivers and passive xover parts
prior to building speakers.

So yes when you go audition something you are taking chance it won't sound
like that after breakin let alone in your place with your equipment.
If your curious about a piece equipment it's good to ask how long it's been in use.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1353
Registered: Aug-04
Kegger,

Thanks. That goes some way to clearing up the wide variation that can occur after speaker break in. So it obviously pays to have a 'satisfaction' refund period when purchasing new speakers, Unfortunately, there are very few retailers who will provide that option (at least in Aus anyway). I'm glad I'm satisfied with ours at present. It's a bit like test driving a Porche and a few weeks and a few hundred kilometres later, after selling your soul to the devil to pay for it, find out that you were happier with the 'vette :-)

 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 205
Registered: Dec-03
I remember saying that somebody may enjoy the B&W Speakers more than the Spendors... I think we have a case of a little bit of over-hype on the Spendors...kind of like the Bose 901 when it came out. I guess that is why there is not a universal speaker design.

There may be a reason that you can find a B&W dealer in most cities in the U.S.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 794
Registered: Dec-03
I also remember someone giving an opinion on a Spendor without actually listening to them...............
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 206
Registered: Dec-03
I also remember somebody reccomending Spendors without listening to the B&W's. The same somebody was gushing over Maggies and then Ohm, before the Spendors in a short period of time.

The important thing to remember here is that everybody has their own opinion. Not everybody thinks McIntosh (or Bryston, Levinson, Boulder, etc...) makes the best amp. Not everybody thinks tube amps are the best. I would be very wary about dropping $$$ on a component based upon an opinion without first demoing.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 564
Registered: Oct-04
Rick: All of the above information speaks to my reticence to purchase several speakers - I had not actually listened to them. I finally auditioned both Paradigm and B&W 705s - and, as you know, "accidentally" found some used 705s in an out-dated Audiogon ad.

BTW - the selling chap said he shipped out the speakers Thursday night - but FedEx says it only has the shipping info - not the speakers themselves so far. Guess that means they've not yet been physically picked up? Hmm. . .

When I have commented to Ghia re the Spendors it was only in line with what I had read by reviewers, either professionals or customers. I believe that she read the same reviews, and concluded that the speakers might be "right" for her.

So - what do/can reviews tell/teach us? Good question, and all I can say is that I use reviews constantly as guidelines. Without them, I'd be truly "flying blind" in the wacky world of stereo.

SMAC - I sincerely hope that your Spendors "age" well, and sound better than they did in your initial listening tests. So many people on this forum repeat, repeat, repeat that equipment is subjective. Yep.

Kegger: As you have built a number of speakers - here's my situation. I have these Radio Shack speakers, whose tweeters I've unplugged, and which sound much better without them!

In digging into the metal cabinets, I find only a rather thin bit of "insulation" pasted on the walls. Would it be to my advantage to put more insulation into the cabinets?

What I have is a 4" polyprop woofer in a cabinet about 9 inches high by 5 inches wide and deep. It's I think aluminum, and fairly heavy. There is a tube-port that extends from mid-cabinet out the back of the cabinet - a tube about 3/4" in diameter - bass loading? Hmmm. . .

I thought some foam might cut down the sort of "metal boxy" sound that they produce. Any suggestions welcome - except that I re-connect those grainy, scratchy tweeters! (grin)

BTW - in researching several brands of small surround speakers, I find that many use a single, 3" driver without tweeter and crossover. Interesting. That's why I thought my liddle "woofer" might well do a fairly good job for me. Turns out, it has - sorta. . .

More anon, with thanks. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 565
Registered: Oct-04
Ben James - sorry, I posted the above before your post came Online. Yes - spending before auditioning is a dangerous business.
 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 795
Registered: Dec-03
The difference is I know the B&W's in question, and have owned B&W's in the past. They are fine speakers. I gave my opinion, and my opinion only, on the Maggies, Ohms, and Spendors. I just asked people who were interested, to give a listen. I never told anyone this is what you should buy. I would never be so bold. But I would never offer an opinion on something I never listened to. I still own the Ohms and the S3/5's.

And yes, everyone has their own opinion, and are entitled to it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1355
Registered: Aug-04
Larry,

I have all fingers crossed for you !

Ben,

"I remember saying that somebody may enjoy the B&W Speakers more than the Spendors..."

Profound! :-)

Rick,

When are you going to fire up that jolly Jolida? BTW - I remember someone saying that somebody may enjoy the B&W Speakers more than the Spendors . . . could it be just hype maybe?

 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 796
Registered: Dec-03
Bless you Rantz. You can always make me laugh.

As I posted under "TUBE TALK", I got as far as unpacking the amp and putting in the tubes. I hope to fire it up tonight. I will keep you all informed.
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1356
Registered: Aug-04
Rick,

I'll expect a glowing report :-)

I'm sure you and yours are in for some fine sound.

Cheers and nighty night!
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

1861: Delegates from six southern states meet in Montgomery, Alabama to form the Confederate States of America.

1869: Birth of Big Bill Haywood, founder of Industrial Workers of the World (IWW).

1899: Revolt against U.S. occupation forces begins in the Philippines. The Islands became a U.S. colony as a result of the Spanish-American War, ostensibly fought to free Cuba from foreign control (sic). Explained the president of the Philippine Commission: "We propose to stay there indefinitely in working out this good that we propose to do them."

1913: Birth of Rosa Parks, civil rights pioneer.

1987: Pianist, fashion victim Liberace dies.



 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 207
Registered: Dec-03
Now Rick,

B&W's have changed throughout the years the ones you owned are different from the current models. I do not own B&W speakers so I am not trying to endorse the brand. I do now that they make some of the finest speakers in the world. I own a Castle Acoustics (another fantastic British speaker maker) model in which I chose over B&W's. I posted some time back that I wasn't sure a Mac/Spendor combo would be better than the Mac/B&W combo. I was and still am right on that. I just hope that newcomers to these forums take things for what they are.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Having spent a few years selling both American and English speakers I have come across the dilemma SM finds herself facing. My impression of the current Spendor line, not having heard them but judging the words used in reviews, would be the line Spendor presents to the public today has not strayed far from the typical British sound of the BC-1 which I did sell. It might be helpful if the reviewers made this point more obvious to potential buyers. They instead assume a knowledge of speaker history that many readers may not share. My experience is with the original KEF products, Rogers, Celestion, Spendor, Quad and a few other lines that came and went. Naturally in the 1980's the Canadian speakers became competitve and fell neatly between the English sound of the Celestion's and the decidely American sound of the Klipsch.

After the required qualification period of the sale, I would direct a client towards what appeared to be their most likely speaker choice. Until the late '80's the common idea of what to expect from each product line was fairly obvious. You didn't sell Quads to a rock listener and the Klipsch line wasn't likely to be what the classical listener would have delivered to their home. There were, of course, exceptions and even the clients who assumed coming into the shop they would purchase one line sometimes ended up putting their money on another, very different, product.

The point of course is personal preference and the mythology of audio reviews. The Spendors have received glowing reviews; mostly by writers who already own British speakers. Ahh, but aren't the B&W's British, I hear you saying. Well, yes and no. B&W remains one of the most successful audio product lines from England to be sold here in the US. But that wasn't always so. In the mid to late '80's B&W was suffering through the difference in value of the US dollar to the British pound. It made English products about 40-60 per cent higher in price than a competitive Amercian or Canadian product. The market was very depressed in England and the salvation of many English products was to shift their designs and marketing to suit US tastes. In the mid 1980's to mid '90's, B&W went from being a typical British sound to a decidely American sound. Gone was the polite sound of the earlier designs and here was the sound of a speaker with deep bass response and a lively treble. Arguably much of this had to do with a shift in the technology of speakers. Poly cones and hard domes were becoming the tools of the trade for a speaker designer. X-overs were better understood and cabinet design had taken huge leaps as computer modeling began making its presence known in the audio business. But the sound of a B&W from 1979 was defintely not the same sound as a B&W from 1994.

Many of the British speaker companies didn't make this shift in balance, most particularly those whose founders came from the BBC school of design. Those companies shifted their marketing to the Asian market where the respect for Quads and Radfords was as large as for Klipsch and McIntosh.

B&W also increased their marketing in the US and their distribution. It was impossible to open any audio magazine and not see an ad for a B&W 801. If there was a lesson B&W learned from Bose, it was putting your name on the lips of the consumer is worth more than anything that happens in the shops. The result of the effort is obvious in that B&W now has the widest disribution of any British speaker manufacturer. A lesson lost on Bose that B&W never forgot would be that a single picture of an 801 in a studio monitoring situation is worth more than anything Paul Harvey can say when someone (who wants to be an audiophile) is ready to discard their Bose 301's.

This is all to say the B&W line has been tailored to American tastes much like Volvo is aiming a car specifically at women. Much like Italian and French wines that have changed to meet American tastes, the B&W line is a comfortable fit for many Americans today. It does many things very well even if it is not what it was when it first arrived on these shores. Not many products have remained as they were thirty years ago. And B&W has become very profitable in the process.

What I see as the dilemma of SM is a matter of taste to be sure. But what she is facing is the choice between two very good products. Like having to choose between Lincoln, Lexus, Acura, Volvo, Mercedes, BMW and Jaguar, she is faced with the wealth of the American market. Few countries have this much diversity in their speaker choices. Choosing the B&W is not much of a bad choice when you consider the quality of the competition. It merely reflects the taste of SM and the taste of the reviewers. Even if she decides she will sell one or the other, she has expanded her listening vocabulary and now has a bit more reference to go on when the next purchase is comtemplated. I doubt she will loose money on either the resale of the Spendors or the B&W's. Either way this should be put in the experience column and she should feel lucky to have this many choices. B&W or Spendor, I know a few people who would be happy to have whichever she discards.


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

SM:
https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/116724.html

 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2774
Registered: Dec-03
Wonderful post, Jan.

It's OK, Ben; people seem to be able to disagree, at least on this thread.

Ghia alias SM; I also wanted to endorse the "Speakers need time" position. It is correct. When I had my KEFs Codas re-tweetered years ago they came back dull and boring. I was very disappointed, especially since the cost was similar to buying a new pair. But after weeks of use they came back to life. And no, it was not me; I had other pairs of speakers in use, for reference.

So give the Spendors more time.

Ben is right, and Jan is right. And so is Rick. I, too, remember the speaker "Epiphany" to Ohms. Ghia, Only you can decide if you prefer Spendors to B&Ws, and that will take some time. They are both quality speakers. From the reviews, I think Jan is quite correct; Spendor have stayed closer to the original design for the original sound. Their BC1 was a legend in its day. But even that was not to everyone's taste.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2775
Registered: Dec-03
Wonderful post, Jan.

It's OK, Ben; people seem to be able to disagree, at least on this thread.

Ghia alias SM; I also wanted to endorse the "Speakers need time" position. It is correct. When I had my KEFs Codas re-tweetered years ago they came back dull and boring. I was very disappointed, especially since the cost was similar to buying a new pair. But after weeks of use they came back to life. And no, it was not me; I had other pairs of speakers in use, for reference.

So give the Spendors more time.

Ben is right, and Jan is right. And so is Rick. I, too, remember the speaker "Epiphany" to Ohms. Ghia, Only you can decide if you prefer Spendors to B&Ws, and that will take some time. They are both quality speakers. From the reviews, I think Jan is quite correct; Spendor have stayed closer to the original design for the original sound. Their BC1 was a legend in its day. But even that was not to everyone's taste.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 452
Registered: Feb-04
John and Jan,

Have you given up on your former position? As Jan wrote on 12/15/04: "That doesn't alter the fact that there is something real to which we can compare the representation. And it certainly doesn't alter the fact that we should, if we are to call this endeavour high fidelity (as John pointed out), try to agree on what we are holding fidelity to."

Are you now agreeing that it's a matter of taste? Don't you think either the B&W or Spendor is better with respect to fidelity to the music? :-)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

2c - Maybe my myopia won't allow me to see this as a shift in policy, but I see this as consistent with what I've said all along. First, there is no true accuracy in a speaker once they are introduced into a home environment. I've set up too many speakers of the same type in rooms that have such a large influence over the final sound that even I was suprised at the final result. Not so much that a Klipsch was transformed into a Quad, but that a Cornwall or a ESL sounded not much like the last pair I delivered. If the frequency balance shifts with the environment it is placed in, which it certainly will, how can anyone say their system is the last word in accuracy? That doesn't deny that some speakers are closer to the original sound than other speakers no matter environment they use. People like and buy Bose; you may have noticed the word "accuracy" is not used in their advertisements.
Secondly, I have always said people listen for different things in their home systems just as they do in live music. What I consider important in a speaker is seldom what I found my clients listening for. Some clients liked what I liked, but not everyone. What I hear at a concert isn't always what a companion has heard. I may leave a concert disappointed while another may have found the experience exhilarating. Personally I found Theils and some of the Klipsch line (along with other brands) to be near impossible to listen to for any length of time or simply uninteresting to me. I did find it was my job to try understanding what other people found interesting in those designs. I've said before, I don't recall ever telling anyone they couldn't buy a product because I didn't think it was good enough. I also don't recall telling anyone they should only attend a performance if they could buy the seat in the eighth row center. Personal taste is not a matter of having no reference point. I would even suggest that the broader your personal reference, the more inclusive you will be of other's taste. (We'll pause for the laughter to die down.) That doesn't deny my personal preferences. I've sold enough hifi's to musicians who wish to be surrounded by the music to understand some people, just as Rantz prefers, would like to hear music as it comes from around them. That isn't my preference or, for the most part, my reference. That doesn't imply I assume the lack of a reference sound to a violin of any manufacture, in any reasonable concert hall, that isn't recognizable as a violin. I cannot however be assured the sound of the electric organ I hear is the sound of the instrument, the instrument it is meant to imitate or the playback system. I still maintain I would prefer to judge the final quality of any audio product by how it reproduces an unamplified instrument. But even that becomes difficult when the entire chain of events involves audio components. I find then the broader the reference, the better.
Thirdly, I don't recall ever saying that taste was not a factor in choosing a system and I have no problem with what someone wants to listen to or through. (We can pause again if you must.) Whether I would choose that system is irrelevant. I do have some doubts as to how a system can be set up without a reference beyond "what I like". Without an outisde reference how can anyone tell whether they have truly set up their system to the best they could achieve? If someone is happy with setting up their system to "what they like" and stopping at that; that is their choice. I am not the audio police. (We'll all wait one last time, I hope you get this out of your system.) If you want to approach more than that level, to reach toward acuracy as much as possible, there is probably more you should do to assure the results. And surely, in the end we all settle for what we like. I do believe you can't pick the color blue for your house if you have no reference of what is blue. If you should decide you want a blue house, which shade of blue is up to you. If you wish to paint your house just judging by the color you like, that is a different process entirely. You may not even come close to blue. But to approach blue when that is what you desire, you must begin with a reference.
Fourthly, my over riding complaint is someone telling me what I just heard cannot be (as in my long ago discussion with Gregory Stern), not someone telling me what I should or could be hearing. Right or wrong in terms of "accuracy", what I heard is real to me. What I might have heard that I missed is another matter also.




 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
"Are you now agreeing that it's a matter of taste? Don't you think either the B&W or Spendor is better with respect to fidelity to the music?"

My long answer above should indicate it isn't important to SM's decision which speaker I would prefer. That was made all too plain to me the first time I sold a system to someone wearing hearing aids. That is a leap of faith when I can't hear, even in the most remote sense, what the customer is hearing.

SM - Don't take that to mean I think you need a hearing aid.


 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 54
Registered: Jan-05
As pointed out, this is strictly a "preference" issue between two very good speakers. I'm fortunate to be in this position.

While auditioning before buying is the smartest, lowest risk option, it also limits the equipment available to you if you happen to live in areas that don't care some of the more "exotic" equipment. When I originally bought the B&W's I had the luxury of doing an in-home audition with my own equipment and comparing two speaker models. There's no local Spendor dealer so I've taken a bit of a chance on them based on reading instead of hearing. I've assumed a little bit of a risk but I've done so willingly and accept whatever the outcome may be. Buying them slightly used means I didn't pay full retail (which some dealers are charging evidently due to high current demand) and, if I decide to sell them, I expect to get back everything I put into them less the shipping I paid. In comparison, I'm trying to sell the MA's and will take a loss on them because I paid the dealer's new price (discounted from list, of course.)

Having said that, I probably will not sell them. I plan to have a set of speakers for the living room and another set for my office. I moved the B&W's into the office in anticipation of using the Spendors in the living room.

I left them running all day yesterday and found them very engaging last night listening to "The Trinity Sessions" and a Starker cello concerto. I was blown away by their presentation of the bass line in Peter Gabriel's "Sledgehammer", hearing details I had not heard before. They are currently running all day while I'm at work. I do believe they will continue to improve during the break-in. I also found that they sound better when elevated about 6 inches off the floor. That brings the tweeter at about ear level for me (and is comparable to the height of the B&W's on their stands.) I will need to build some stands for them and also will install the spikes. No more A-B comparison until the end of the month. At that time, if I don't love them more than the B&W's I may put them on Audiogon and try something else - maybe those fancy French speakers someone mentioned before....or maybe Audio Physic....maybe I'll schedule a vacation to a city where I can listen to all these brands (SF?) before making a buying decision. :-)



 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Spendors stay for the month. BF - ?


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Do you have the bases and spikes that I believe should have come with the speakers as original equipment?


 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 567
Registered: Oct-04
SM - (double grin) Yes! You DO need to go to San Francisco - to audition all sorts of speakers! There, you will be subjected to more sound of a quality nature than you can ever imagine. I thought (once) that Chicago had HiFi to the Max. HA! Not so. New York? Welllll, maybe. . .

OK - you're sitting at home mildly exasperated because you paid a lot of money for speakers that you now question.

I'm sitting here in Swampville pulling out my hair and trying to figger out WHERE THE HECK my B & Ws are!!! The seller gave me tracking, and the info was electronically sent to FedEx. But FedEx says it has no record of those speakers, and simply doesn't know where they are. Sigh. . .

Have a good evening, all! I'm away to a nice bit of baked ham with dark brown sugar/spice glaze, some oven-roasted red potatoes with herbs de Provence, and some organic broccoli with a finish of Romano cheese, finely grated. Some Shiraz from our Aussie friends, and a tad of dark Italian roast capuccino ice cream to end it all. Simple fare for simple folk! Who needs HiFi? (grin)

Someday - I may get my B & Ws!!!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 55
Registered: Jan-05
Bases and spikes, yes. BF, no longer - but, he did last more than a month. Uh, that's what you were referring to right, Jan? If not, boy am I embarassed. lol

Dang, Lar, I wish I was eating at your house tonight. Have you talked to Fedex? I know sometimes there is a delay between the pickup and getting the tracking into their system - but, usually it should show up within 24 hours and usually much sooner than that. Hopefully, insurance was purchased for the shipment for the value of the speakers - if so, then you have a means to get your money back.

Ok, off to do some birthday shopping. Then, maybe there'll be some listening time later tonight...
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 453
Registered: Feb-04
Lar, take heart. It took about a day between the time my seller shipped the speakers and the time the tracking info was available on the UPS website. They're scheduled to arrive this Tuesday.

I've been to two audio stores in the Bay Area that used to carry Audio Physic speakers, but no longer. One store manager said that the exchange rate no longer made them competitive. But that didn't stop him from keeping the B&W and Dynaudio lines. I think those are better known names and people are just more comfortable buying them. By the way I saw your 705s in the store. They looked and, more importantly, sounded fabulous. I'd be surprised if you didn't absolutely love them. They were driven by fancy Meridian gear. I also saw the new 800 series speakers with the diamond tweeters (!) They were being broken in. I see those as your next upgrade ;>)

Jan, I kid you, no?

SMc, you are welcome to visit SF anytime, but I would suggest activities other than auditioning speakers for visitors. There's so much to see and do around here.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2175
Registered: Dec-03
LARRY:
"Kegger: As you have built a number of speakers - here's my situation. I have these Radio Shack speakers, whose tweeters I've unplugged, and which sound much better without them!

In digging into the metal cabinets, I find only a rather thin bit of "insulation" pasted on the walls. Would it be to my advantage to put more insulation into the cabinets?

What I have is a 4" polyprop woofer in a cabinet about 9 inches high by 5 inches wide and deep. It's I think aluminum, and fairly heavy. There is a tube-port that extends from mid-cabinet out the back of the cabinet - a tube about 3/4" in diameter - bass loading? Hmmm. . .

I thought some foam might cut down the sort of "metal boxy" sound that they produce. Any suggestions welcome - except that I re-connect those grainy, scratchy tweeters! (grin)

BTW - in researching several brands of small surround speakers, I find that many use a single, 3" driver without tweeter and crossover. Interesting. That's why I thought my liddle "woofer" might well do a fairly good job for me. Turns out, it has - sorta. . . "

Now before anyone scolds me for any and all sugestions coming forth, I am going to attempt to put myself
inside larrys brain with his thoughts and preferences and experience (man the cobwebs in here) but with
maybe a little extra knowllage in the workings of speakers. Ok, I would actually disconnect the xover
completely and remove it from the cabinet and cover all walls with a 1/2" thick of foam padding leaving the
tweeter in the box but disconected. See how that sounds to you. If you seem to get to much treble from
the driver (which I dought) then you put a 4-5uf (micro farad) capacitor accross the neg. to poss. leads on
the woofer to filter out the highs. You can pick up caps at many electronics stores (radio shack) make sure
it is a non polarized cap. when or if you restuff the cabinet try to keep the foam on the walls (spray glue maybe)
and not in the center of the box to give you a descent amount of breathing room for the driver. make sure
the port is free from anything that might impead air excaping the cabinet.
"tube-port that extends from mid-cabinet out the back of the cabinet" (bass port)
Foam padding can be gotten from many different sources, box packing , carpet padding , other speakers,
or anything really that uses a faom pad that is pretty squishy!
(ooohhh squishy I like squishy, LARRY STAY FOCUSED!)
and flexable. If the pad is say 1" thick , with a good knife
(ahh knife ha ha ha ha........larry be careful with that you'll knock over my beer)
you can split the foam to the desired thickness. If you were dealing with a much larger cabinet you could
use the pink (ahh pink) type of home insulation.

Whoo I'm out of the there , that was strange it was like silance of the lambs or something , I kept waiting
to be offered some kiante and faver beans. Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin!
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 208
Registered: Dec-03
The main issue between the B&W and Spendors is that they are of comparable quality and price. I think you can upgrade a component with one of similar class and not gain much (if any) improvement. You amy also find the holy grail, but moth of the time you don't.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 568
Registered: Oct-04
Kegger: (Achooooo!!) Knew there was something foreign in my brain! Glad you made it out OK, sir! (grin)

I see (I think) what you're driving at. Coat the inside of the cabinet all 'round with foam - but leave a nice, big empty space in the middle - nothing stuffed in there, right? OK so far.

I've got foam, about 3/4" thick on all interior surfaces, and the crossover boards (man, they're BIG!) have been unscrewed from the cabinet and replaced with the foam - which is cemented to the cabinet.

I almost hate to say how much better the sound is from the speakers, without the tweeters. Oh, I know this is heresy, but for this particular speaker, I could see no reason for that hissy, squaky tweeter!

Mer and I just finished a bad French movie tonight, with subtitles, but the sound on the track was pretty good, and with the modded RS surround speakers, well, I've never heard the system sound anywhere near this good! Music doesn't sound as good as soundtracks - which I find interesting.

FedEx says the B & Ws were "picked up" at 6:04 p.m. from some little backwater New Jersey town, but that's all I've heard.

Two Cents: I'm trying, trying to be patient! Really I am, sir! (sigh)

SM - you're welcome anytime you feel like coming down to Swampville. As is anyone else here on the Old Dawgs thread! Tomorrow night it will be roast chicken with a raspberry-chipotle glace', some steamed carrots with butter, white pepper and tarragon, tossed salad with tomato, avocado, papaya and toasted pine nuts, and balsamic vinaigrette dressing. We try to keep things simple around here.

Away to more speaker-fretting. . .
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 56
Registered: Jan-05
Kegger,

That was scary as hell! LOL

2C,

I'm familiar with SF's charms. I intend to make it there for a MTT/SFSO Mahler performance in addition to seeing some sights and experiences I didn't see on other trips - including, spending part of a day in an audio salon listening to speakers.

So, y'all didn't really think I could wait a month for another A-B comparison did you? lol. The Spendors are definitely sounding better. I think running them in the past 2 days has had a postive impact. Still, I feel like they will continue to improve. Tonight, I added the spikes to the front of the speakers to tilt them back and that has made a difference, too.

Some of the previous comments I made about the B&W's sounding bigger and louder still stand. The Spendors definitely need a little more juice from the amp to get as loud as the B&W's. However, right now, I'm listening to them with the Mac in the 9 o'clock position and they are keeping up with Doc & Richard Watson's guitar pickin'.

There are some things they do better than the B&W's. For instance, the bass range is clearly better and the low end presentation is better. The bass (guitar and drum) is much tighter and faster than the B&W's. On the other hand, the bass drum tends to sound bigger through the B&W's. I think that is part of what freaked me out the first night when comparing the kettle drums in the Also Sprach Zarathustra. At the time, the overall effect was disappointing and I believe that clouded my view on other aspects of the listening experience.

The B&W's do sound more open to me. There is a greater sense of air surrounding the vocals and instruments. This has both a positive and negative effect in my opinion. The positive effect is there is the cliched "you are there" presence. It sounds like the band is there in your room. The downside is it doesn't sound quite as clean as the Spendor presentation.

To me, both speakers do vocals exceptionally well. The Spendors offer a slightly more natural sound on the instruments. For instance, the trumpet and violin solos in the Waterboys "On My Way to Heaven" were more natural sounding and not as bright on the Spendors.

But! The Spendors still aren't doing justice to Patsy Cline's "Your Cheatin' Heart". I just don't get it. This is one instance where the extra space offered by the B&W's must make a huge difference.

Overall, though, the Spendors are definitely evolving in a positive direction and seem to be drawing me in as I start hearing their strengths.

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 569
Registered: Oct-04
SM - you're coming very close to saying that the B&Ws sound "bright." Please, please don't say that! After months of "bright," more I don't need! (grin)

glad to read that the Spendors are coming around for you. Sorta like marriage - the two people reach compromises - or they split. Hope you and the Spendor twins meet in the middle. . .

Kegger: Sorry - it's 5/8" foam, not 3/4" foam I put inside the speakers. And I'm thinking of taking out the tweeters and covering the mounting holes with heavy rubber gasket material, cemented in place. That would open up the cabinet a lot more, and cut down the weight that my liddle stands have to put up with. As I've said, the speakers aren't worth much of anything, so I'm not worried about "ruining" them. Plus, this modding is cheaper than new speakers - and also a bit of fun for me.

More anon. ..

 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 57
Registered: Jan-05
Don't worry, Larry. The B&W's will take your listening experience to a new level over the Polks. Without question.

In my comments about the "you are there" feeling the openness of the B&W's present, it probably would be more accurate to say "they are here" because it sounds more like the band is playing in the living room as opposed to being in a performance hall. Just wanted to clarify that since my comments seemed to contradict one another.

It's time to wrap presents and go to bed. Will be out of town this weekend so there won't be a chance for more listening until Sunday night. I won't run the speakers while I'm out of town. The cats seemed a little perturbed after spending the whole day listening to Toad the Wet Sprocket. :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2176
Registered: Dec-03
Sounds like we err you are on the right track lar!
The reason I said leave the tweeters in there was so the hole was covered.
So as long as you seal the hole good thats fine.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ghia you liked the little story aye?
................
It sounds like what your describing is what I deal with a lot.
I want my speakers detailed and all sparkly but not to the point where they
become distratcing or harsh or sibylant (mainly feamle voices) but on the
otherhand if there too trimmed down in the high end I feel I'm missing something.
There is a very fine line to a speaker being detailed and overly bright.
What I have come to love about my tube gear is I can dial the speakers in without
having to modify anything. And if I find something that is different about
a disk I may even change tubes for that disk!(easy on the preamp)

Also I'm sure the spendors are better in the bass region with more
and better defined bass (you can pick out the instruements.) Subs generally
have a mono tone bass to them and you hear bass but not an instruement.
I generally like a speaker that goes down to about 50hz flat then use a
sub to fill just the last bit of really deep bass for more of a feeling than a sound.
The spendors having 2 bass drivers more then likely do bass better then
the b&w's 1 driver of simular size.

And it's very interesting you mentioned peter gabriel as hearing things in
the bass area you never heard before that is the same experince as I've had.
The bass player and drummer both have some very low notes they play that if
you have speakers not subs that can go low enough with detail it's
incredable what that sounds like. You can hear the fretts, and the bass plucking
is one of my favorite sounds. If you like good bass playing with speakers that
can do it justice try some J Giels Band and one tune in particular RIVER OF BLINDNESS!
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 58
Registered: Jan-05
Kegger,

Thanks for the recommendation of the J Geils Band. I'll try to remember to pick that one up. Yes, you are right about the speakers revealing more detail about the bass instruments. The Spendor drivers are very small, approximately 4.5". It is amazing the amount of low ends these speakers produce given how small the drivers are. Perhaps the smaller size helps them produce better bass by being faster and tighter. The B&W driver is 6.5" which I think is why it gives a big drum sound with more depth but it is a little slower than the Spendors.

Unlike you, I tend towards the "one size fits all" so I don't tinker with components based on a per disk basis - just don't have the patience to deal with it. Plug and play is my motto. But, I have a feeling when I really want to hear Patsy, I'll head to my office where I'm setting up the B&W's paired with my NAD c350 and the c541i.

With your system, you could probably give a very educational demo to listeners to show them the different sounds you can get from different combinations of components. You might have to do that some day. :-)
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2177
Registered: Dec-03
"Unlike you, I tend towards the "one size fits all" so I don't tinker with components based on a per disk basis - just don't have the patience to deal with it. Plug and play is my motto"

I don't do that very often but have experimented and was just giving another
example of how cool it is that if you like to tinker that tubes can make it very easy!

"With your system, you could probably give a very educational demo to listeners to show them the different sounds you can get from different combinations of components. You might have to do that some day. :-) "


Actually some of my friends who love music but aren't into the gear like
I am have been rather impressed by what they hear and they didn't know!

As I'm sure you have some people that have been taken in by your passion for
the music and gear you chose. It's very interesting how some can get all rapped
up into something that others lack the interest to do so but can still appreciate it.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2776
Registered: Dec-03
Two Cents,

Great point. Thank you. I revise my last point. Either Ghia's Spendors are better than the B&Ws, or they are the same, or they are worse.

IF... the objective is the closest approach to the original sound.

AND IF... other components in the system do not enable one or other speaker to give greater fidelity, perhaps by compensating for colouration etc.

So, "it all depends". And, also, I do not know which. Ghia can compare.

I am completely with Ghia on not wishing to fiddle with settings, just listen. I want a system I can set up to sound its best, then forget about.

Re taste and matters of opinion, I just heard a 30 min radio interview with Lorraine Hunt Lieberson. I can post the internet link for fans, such as 2c and Larry. The Mahler 2 MTT SFSO clip sounded good. I thought the Handel clips didn't. It could be me: this IS a matter if opinion. Unless you adopt the "fidelity to Handel's intentions" approach, in which case there are things to discuss. If not, it's "whatever floats your boat". A bit like hi-fi.

J.V. is very perceptive, and the BF issue proves the point. I had not picked up on that. Condolences, Ghia.
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest
SM - Sorry to hear Mr. B has flown the coop. Should we send flowers or speaker cable? How are the cats taking it?



 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 570
Registered: Oct-04
SM - know you are gone - but you can read when you return. You may remember Jan V. talking earlier about bass, and how even a 4" speaker, with proper mounting, can give low bass? That stuck in my mind, as I was tackling the thorny issues of sound with the liddle Radio Shack surrounds.

JV - check yer e-mail. And thanks for many items of help along the way towards my achieving "better," if not "great" sound!

Kegger: OK, my man - here's the final tally on the Radio Shack Optimus PRO-X55AV speakers. Took out tweeter, and filled in 1 1/4" hole with a product used under ceramic floor tile. It's black, sticky stuff on one side, smooth rubber on the top. Put that on both sides of the hole. Fine. Put back together. Noted that one tweeter had a puncture "wound" - hmmm. . . Also noted, strange, that the tweeter is 8 ohms, and the woofer is 4 ohms. What does that say to you???

Took out the crossover board. Noted that the speakers had a sorta wool carpet pad on the Back of the cabinet only. Took that out, trimmed.

Cut 5/8" foam, and put on bottom and top of cabinet (inside, natch! GRIN) Cut and installed 1/2" foam on sides of cabinet. Trimmed and glued back the wooly stuff on the back.

I'd used siliconized latex caulk/adhestive to put everything on - it helps to damp cabinet-vibrations. Let glop dry for several hours, then put all back together. Well, I'll be durned!

Speakers sound better than they should. Or did, anyway. THANK YOU, SIR!

Everybody else - Kegger's ideas worked very well for me - but I take any blame for anything that goes wrong or messes up the speakers. If they eventually don't work out - heck, they're only worth about $18.

Gotta say that Mer and I watched a DVD movie late last night - and she commented on the surround sound and how much more realistic it was. Less shrill, said she. Uh-huh. Yep. Sure is. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 571
Registered: Oct-04
BTW - our "late night movie" was "De-Lovely" - the Cole Porter story. Not a great movie, but I do love Cole Porter's music - and it gave the surround system a pretty good workout!

More anon. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 572
Registered: Oct-04
John A. - the reason the Lieberson/Mahler clip sounded better is because it IS. I've got Ms. Lieberson's Handel SACD and - while I love her performance - the sound quality is somewhat muted or muddied, or something like. The Mahler, on the other hand - is well-recorded and simply elegant, as friend Rick might phrase it.

When the SanFran Symphony decided to "go it alone" with its recordings, it not only developed its own label, but its own engineering staff and production team. They wanted to do it right, and so far as I'm concered - they succeeded.

Too bad my "old" symphony orch - Chicago - didn't go the same route. But then, with Barenboim at the helm, there was enough dissent in the ranks to prevent much of anything from happening. I understand there will be great glee next year in Chicago, when Mr. Barenboim bows out.
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 455
Registered: Feb-04
The engineering team on the SFSO recordings is actually from (close your eyes, John) Sony I believe, they're so-called Super Audio CD Project team.

In addition to the SFSO, the LSO and the Royal Concertgebouw O have started their own labels. I think this is a great trend, part of the continuing rise of small labels in classical music. There seems to be more variety these days and less focus on superstars. Hope this trend crosses over to popular music.

It sounds as if LHL's Handel disc is another case of hype. I don't doubt her performance is good, but the disc has also been lauded for its sonics by the press. I just discovered this year that I don't really like Handel. Otherwise I would've bought that cd.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 573
Registered: Oct-04
Two Cents: (GASP!) You don't like Handel? Oh, muses, forgive this lad, for he knows not whereof he speaks! (grin) OK - I'm not that fond of his operas, either. But then there's the Music for the Royal Fireworks, Water Music, etc.(overplayed about as much as Vivaldi's "Four Seasons") - and you've gotta cut the guy a liddle slack. . . maybe? Well, there's always "Messiah," which continues on about as popular as the Book from which the text was plagerized (grin).

the Lieberson disc is, indeed, "good," but in comparing it with the SFSO discs - well, there seems to be a "veil" over it. Not just sure how to describe it. This is another case of wild swings in volume. I start out with the NAD at 25, then all of a sudden Ms. Lieberson achieves full cry, and it's so loud that I'm afraid the neighbors will complain. Makes my ears hurt. So, then I turn it down, and of course, she reverts to her pianissimo levels, and I can barely hear her. How to strike a balance! Argggghhhhhh!!!!! How can I complain about getting the full sonic range? But sometimes (oh, horror!) just sometimes I long for a bit of compression! OK, Jan, John, etc. - hit me with your best shot! (grin)

Thanks for the correction on the recording team, I read - or "thought" I read - that they had developed their own team. Maybe the article said "brought IN their team," or something. Anyway, good for you, 2 Cents, to catch that!

And yes - I see more and more "small" performers on disc - many of which I've auditioned and found to be very, very good. I'm glad to see - as you wrote - that more variety continues.

Right now I'm immersed in a lady named "Uchica," who is turning some Schubert penmanship into golden sounds, pianowise. A grand way to spend an afternoon in Swampville.

More anon. . .



 

Silver Member
Username: Rick_b

New York USA

Post Number: 797
Registered: Dec-03


TUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUBES



















Good
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

IT'S ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE!




 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 576
Registered: Oct-04
JV - No it ain't. It's as dead as the movie "De-Lovely." Awful movie with bits of good C Porter tunes. If you want great Cole Porter tunes, rent "Evil Under the Sun" with Peter Ustinov. Great flick. Great music. Good romp.

Biggest disappointment - Diana Krall. She was simply awful, and to top that, they pretty much edited her off before she got a chance to really sing. Yuck. (maybe she was so bad they did a "mercy edit?")

Think I'll play "Hunt for Red October" tomorrow. Great sound effects. Then "Master and Commander" just to see if the sound is better. . .

B & Ws are lost somewhere west of Newark. Maybe a rabid audiophile is holding them hostage? (grin)

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 577
Registered: Oct-04
Two Cents: If you were confused about "Uchica" in my earlier posting to you - please note that this is another example of my early senility. I was obviously (well, not so obviously) referring to the lady pianist "Uchida." Sigh. As in Mitsuko Uchida and her fine recording on Philips of Schubert's Impromptus op. 90 and 142. Very fine! She also does an excellent job of interpreting Mozart - as fine as Perahia, IMHO.

To all: Mer and I this morning watched "the making of" the movie: "De-Lovely," and pronounce the special features much better than the movie itself. Mer says the movie needs a LOT of editing, and then it might be pretty good. Some fine acting, but the cutting and zany inter-cuts made into a jumble. IMHO, natch! (grin)

OK - we've been coerced into a "Superbowl Party" this eve - sigh - so will be "out" pretty much until late tonight. May your team win. . .
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Larry _ I felt the problem with "Delovely" was the film makers got the script approved and then found out they had to sell the personal story of a man with many, many flaws to a public not particularly in the mood for his character traits. Surely "Chicago" has proved it's easier to use music to sell murder, larseny, heterosexual infidelity, liable, and perjury to an audience than it is to soft peddle Mr. and Mrs. Porters' virtues and vices.


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Bad weather this week in Dallas means I got four movies at the video store. "Ray" is quite superb, and should do well at the Oscars. Another case of using music to sell the flaws of an entire generation of (black) men to an audience willing to accept the limitations of the flesh in an "approved" manner. None the less, it told a compelling story in a tight, well constructed, if not entirely honest, fashion. I'm sure no one needs me to recommend this film.
The other three movies I watched were "The Forgotten", "Sky Captian and the World of Tomorrow", and "Catwoman". They amount to almost six hours of my life I will never get back to use productively. All three suffer from the same problem; a problem "Ray" handles quite well. The problem? It would seem it must be very difficult to tell a story in Hollywood. All three have special features that seem extraordinarily high minded about the final product when viewed after the movie. Even on a rainy day with nothing on TV, these were a waste of time. I should have read or listened to music. Curse you Home Theater system and your wicked, addictive and all to easy allure.


 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2178
Registered: Dec-03
Just a quick shot of the room after some cleaning but before the end of the party!

Upload
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Larry - A footnote to the "Delovely" film. I don't know if you've seen "Ray" yet, but when you do I think you will see the problem with the Cole Porter biopic.

Ray Charles as depicted in the film (and this holds true of the characters in "Chicago" also) is treated as an iconic figure. Simple almost to the point of caricature. This poor, weak child with physical flaws rises above all his handicaps to succeed in a world he never completely joins. Instead of joining the community, he leads the community; becoming in the process a larger than life figure. That his flaws are so obvious they would destroy a lesser man, is the crux of the conflict in the film. While overcoming the weakness of spirit, he succumbs to the weaknesses of the flesh. It is his flaws which give him greatness.

My memory of Greek Tragedy and Joseph Campbell are buried on a shelf somewhere so I can't give examples, but this is the familiar story of many mythic figures.

Now consider "Delovely" and you are given a simple man. Not simple in the idea of not leading a complex life. Indeed, that is part of the problem of telling Porter's story. The viewer is given too many moments of complexity. Where Ray is reduced to a few simple virtues and vices, Cole is allowed to be as dramatic and idiosyncratic as he was in real life. The failure of "Delovely" can be laid at the feet of the film makers who chose to make Porter a human being. By showing not the larger than life character Porter was, the film makers chose to make his foibles those of a man among other men. Particularly considering what some of those foibles were in the case of the Porters, I don't think the American public can accept the behavior of this couple as readily as they can come to grips with the almost similar flaws of Ray Charles. Porter's flaws do not become his key to greatness as with Charles, but they are shown as simply a part of his very human personality.

The problem of "Delovely" is, I would say, a matter not of poor story telling or editing. It is a matter of the scale with which the character is portrayed.


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2778
Registered: Dec-03
You OK, Rick....?

Are tubes really that good?

There is a rave review of PrimaLuna Prologue Two in March HiFi News. The basic change seems to be KT88 valves compared with the EL34 valves of the Prologue One.

There is also some very informed commentary on the question of surround sound vs stereo. The 1970s ads for four-channel and ambisonics are sobering. The general conclusion seems to be that multi-channel recordings still have little or nothing to offer for playing music. DTS was as good as anything, and would have been an acceptable multi-channel audio standard, but the format war means the whole thing is now more trouble than it is worth. I paraphrase, but that seems to be the general conclusion of the writers there.

From 1970s ad for Sony Quadraphonic Sound:
New Quadraphonic albums every month
To be honest, there aren't all that many Quadraphonic records around yet. Remember when stereo first started? It's the same kind of situation!
However, CBS and EMI are now releasing new Quadraphonic albums every month. And where they lead, others are sure to follow.
It's worth buying Quadraphonic records, even before you get the sound system. You can play them on you stereo. You'll get the full stereo effect without damaging the Quadraphonic qualities. And when you buy the system, you'll be well stocked up with the records to match.


Thanks for the recommendation of "Ray", Jan. "Aviator" should be another good bet for those interested in Hollywood's approach to history. I look forward to both.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 579
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. - I think if you were to view the "making of" shorts at disc-end, you might modify your thoughts a tad. We were opened up to a director and his associates who took a good story, and decided to do an "artsy" thing with it by interspersing Porter either just before or just after death (unsure here) with snippets of his life. for us, it didn't work - and most of the critics agreed.

Yes, sir, the Porters did live alternative lifestyles, but the overall story is still fascinating enough to engage most movie-viewers, I think.

I haven't yet seen the Ray Charles film, so I'd better not even try to compare the two. I'll come back later when I have seen it.

To comment on your final line: yes, the movie folk "smallified" Porter's life. But I maintain that editing was the final blow.

Respectfully. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 580
Registered: Oct-04
Kegger: Good grief, man! May I humbly suggest to you that the room needs:

4 more speakers.

2 more amps.

3 pairs of blue-light VU meters.

6 beer-holders.

1 partridge in a pear tree.

UR watching the Super Bowl? Betcha R!!!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2179
Registered: Dec-03
Yep the parties at my place, pretty much every year since my buddy
and I run the fantasy football league.

Also it gives me a reason to CLEAN!

Any and all are welcome!

We got a smoked turkey and a deep fried turkey with all the fixings.
Then we got the cheese and meat trays.
And the vegetable trays "yuck".
Assorted breads and dips and spreads.

10 cases of various beers and assorted liquors.

Oh yah I go in to work tomorrow at about 2:00pm "they allready know"

 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1357
Registered: Aug-04
Larry and Jan,

Delovely is being released here next month I believe. I've been looking forward to seeing/hearing it.

Gee, Thanks a lot you two - what's next? Reading the last page of my novels and pasting them here:-)

Partypoopers!

As far as Catwoman goes - at least she was in the form of Halle Berry - if not a great actress, a great figure (almost as great as Kate Beckinsale's). I expected a ridiculous Hollywood flick and that's what we got, but for a mindless hour and a half, one has consider the wonders of movie making; computer graphics, stunts etc. With the comic hero movies abounding, Catwoman is nearer to the top of the poor list.

Am hearing great things about "Ray" the movie - just purchased the CD "Genius Loves Company" (a complilation with guests) a bit disappointing but for a few tracks. Mr Charles's age was very evident in his voice imho - but what a voice he had! What a life he had! What an entertainer we had!

Now you guys, please don't see Kevin Spacey's "Beyond The Sea" before I do - or if you do, please have some compassion for your fellow filmlovers beyond the sea :-)

Kegger,

It's a wonder you don't fry yourself when partying in your room. Far out!


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

The synopsis of the Porters' lives should be no secret to anyone who appreciates his music. So do rent the film. You will enjoy the movie if you enjoy his music. I think the critics were mostly disappointed because they were hoping for a "bigger" movie. It is a love story more than a biography. If you go in with that in mind, I think you'll enjoy the film despite the minor failings of the script (and editing, if you insist, Larry). I'll be interested in your opinion.


 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1360
Registered: Aug-04
The movie appeared to have all the right ingredients, Porter's music, good performers playing good performers, as well as Kline and Judd being on my favourite actors list. The movie isn't getting great reviews in the cinemas here, but I don't care for most reviewers in any genre (present company on this forum excluded of course) as they are so often proved to be full of BS (which, again, is opinion) once having had my own evaluation or experience. So I shall still look forward to the movie and shall offer my thoughts also. Thanks.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 581
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. - did you see "De-Lovely" in a theatre, or at home on DVD? If at home, did you also view the "making of" sequences? Just wondering. . .

Well, our host's team (Eagles) lost, so there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth - but Mer and I escaped with only minor dip-blotches and beer-fuzz. Sigh. I just can't get into sports. . .

Now - this MAY be THE week - for speakers? Stay tuned for gory details. . .

Think I'll keep my movie comments to myself from now on - hope I haven't ruined the mood for you, My Rantz! Ordinarily, I agree with you on critics, but this time, I think they were right, despite Jan's protestations.

G-nite - and good music!
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1361
Registered: Aug-04
Larry,

You make your comments any time you like.
I'll make up my own mind - long as I still have one :-)

 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Larry - I watched the film on DVD but don't remember watching the extra feature you mention. I'm not sure why; possibly needed to get the disc back to the shop. "Making of ..." features are not often what I'm interested in on many discs. As with "Catwoman", the people all seem to think they are creating a time piece for the ages when they are really just making a movie. "Delovely" was good enough to rent again sometime. If I do, I'll make a point to watch the feature.

Wouldn't it be more interesting if the special features and commentary by the people involved were honest about the film? "This is where Gavin really pissssed meeee offfff! The SOB wanted me to ... And I told him to ....." Those I'd watch.


 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Heyyyyyy, Kegger, how's your head today?

Here's something I don't see in your room:


http://melhuish.org/audio/DIYOT3.html


 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 582
Registered: Oct-04
Jan V. et al - you are so right about the interviews with the movie-folk. But - I do enjoy going through the process of creating a scene, or makeup, or the music scoring and recording. That's often more fun for me than the movie itself. It surely was with De-Lovely!

And I have to admit that I got a better handle on the concept of putting the movie together after the interviews, inane though they sometimes were. Oh, I still didn't like the movie very much, but it made more sense after watching the special features. If I want more Cole Porter music I'll just slap on my copy of Evil Under the Sun. . .

And Jan, if you felt that the movie was good enough to rent again - well, good for you! Different strokes for diff-runt folks, you know, sir. . .

I'm about to "leave" audiogon. Have had some 400 "looks" at the speakers, but no good offers. At that level of audio, perhaps I'm better off advertising on eBay? I see most of the audiogon stuff is higher-end product. Been more than a week now, and so. . .

Well, after a long evening with the Super Bowl last night, it came home to me that it is fine to have big-screen TV and all the trimmings, but if that TV set isn't tweaked just right - it really looks horrible! As I'm not competent to tweak big-screen TVs, I could only suggest to our host/friend that he get some help. As you well know, defects in picture and sound are one thing with liddle sets (like our 20-inch one) - but are magnified out of proportion on the BIG sets! Actually made my eyes hurt. And the host's team lost, so there was no joy in Mudville. But good steaks. . .

More anon. . . that's a threat, BTW. (grin)
 

J. Vigne
Unregistered guest

Here's something from "soundstage" on 1 watt = **dB.
"Let's look at some of the major parameters that are affected by the big design decisions. The first thing is efficiency (which also gets called sensitivity). This is a measurement of just what volume a driver or speaker will produce with a particular input power. Usually, this is given as a volume with 1W of input power from 1M away. A typical speaker aimed at the consumer market might be rated at 89dB, 1W/1m. This means that if you use a 1W input signal and measure at a distance of 1M away, you'll be hearing a 89dB SPL (sound pressure level). Sometimes, instead of 1W, you'll see it measured as 2.83V/1m. If the speaker is 8 ohms, this is the same rating scale, because 2.83V into 8 ohms is 1W. If the speaker presents less than 8 ohms of a load, using 2.83V instead inflates the sensitivity rating compared with what it would be with 1W. This makes the efficiency look higher."

 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2180
Registered: Dec-03
Jan I liked the link you pointed me too I could definatly do that.

these:

"The Forgotten", "Sky Captian and the World of Tomorrow", and "Catwoman".

I agree with two of them but I actually thought Sky Captian and the World of Tomorrow
was better than I had expected and was quite pleasently surprised.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 584
Registered: Oct-04
My Rantz: despite my overall disappointment with "De-Lovely," there is one scene in the movie that I want to point out to you. I won't go into detail - but please, when you watch the movie, pay CLOSE attention to screen details when Natalie Cole sings: "Love For Sale."

I didn't get it on first viewing - and didn't entirely get it even after I watched the making of the scene - had to watch it four times to get the full impact. A mini-bit of genius - but so subtle that it seems most of the viewers missed it entirely.

Once you have viewed the movie, please let me know your "take" on this scene.

Jan V. probably caught it all on his first viewing, as he is more perceptive than I. But Mer missed it, too, and she's got hawk-eyes. Sigh.

Upon Jan V.'s comments that he'd gladly watch the movie again - I did so. Since we've got the rental for a week, there is lots of time. My second viewing came after I had watched all of the special features at disc-end. That made the movie much more understandable to me - though I still have my original reservations - which I shall discuss with you once you have viewed it.

Still no word on the speakers - FedEx has let me down on tracking. All I know is they left New Jersey early Saturday morning. Sigh.

Amazing - guess some people didn't know what they were bidding on - but a pair of Ghia's Monitor 10 speakers sold on eBay last week for $450. Now, there's another pair there - I think the high bid so far is aboutr $200.

I listed the Polks on eBay - a 5-day auction - and we'll see what happens. So far, nine people have put the listing on their "watch" lists, which means they're interested, but are waiting on other bids. On eBay - as y'all probably know, most of the bidding takes place in the last five or six hours of the auction. My closing time is 8:41 a.m., Friday. Stay tuned. . .

More anon. . .
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 59
Registered: Jan-05
Larry,

The only Monitor Audio speakers I see on eBay for $200 are the Bronze B2 series which is MA's lowest cost line. I have the Gold Reference GR10. Do you have the link to GR10 that sold for $450? If you are right about that price for that model then I'll take a bigger bath than expected on these speakers.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Simplymcintosh

Post Number: 60
Registered: Jan-05
Asimo,

Did you try out the Mac 1700? Did it work out for you?

 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 585
Registered: Oct-04
SM - I'll try to find the speakers - once an item is sold a link no longer exists, I think? Will try, anyway. I just remember something like "Monitor GR10" - but will check.
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 586
Registered: Oct-04
SM - well, darn! I KNOW I saw them very early this morning - and specifically noted "GR10." Sigh. I've tried - will try other links - and I noted that I can't even find my own speakers without typing in the specific model. Every time I go on eBay it seems that I get different things popping up - very strange.
Sorry if I got you upset - but I do remember the GR10 last week - now there are both silver and bronze MA speakers listed - but the GR10 has vanished. Along with my speakers! (grin)
I find I get different results if I type in bookshelf speakers, monitor speakers, Polk speakers, monitor audio, and so on. Then sometimes speakers will come up on "all categories," and sometimes only on "consumer electronics." Think eBay needs file overhaul?
 

Silver Member
Username: Black_math

Post Number: 209
Registered: Dec-03
Napoleon Dynamite
 

Gold Member
Username: Myrantz

Post Number: 1371
Registered: Aug-04
"My Rantz: despite my overall disappointment with "De-Lovely," there is one scene in the movie that I want to point out to you. I won't go into detail - but please, when you watch the movie, pay CLOSE attention to screen details when Natalie Cole sings: "Love For Sale." "

Will do Larry, and I'll give my thoughts when I have seen the film. Could be next month or the one after though. Good luck with the 705's!

 

Bronze Member
Username: Asimo

Post Number: 48
Registered: Apr-04
SimplyMcIntosh

I had some technical delay with the McIntosh project. The seller is not ready for listening test yet.
I also discovered some interesting data about my NAD Monitor 7000 receiver.
This model or the Monitor series was claimed to be the best NAD ever made until their audiophile S series.
There is some logic in my preference of old NAD 7000 Monitor over my new NAD C350.
I also suspect the 1960 McIntosh 1700 vintage receiver will have to try hard to convince me that it is better than the NAD 7000.
Is your Spendor model S5e ?
 

Silver Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 587
Registered: Oct-04
SM et al - well, I guess either I'm spaced out or eBay has done me in. After scrolling through 5,000 speakers, and trying dozens of different categories - I simply can't find the speakers I saw early this morning - a pair of them, with the grills off - Monitor Audio GR10 they were labeled - and the opening bid as I remember was less than $300.

But then, I couldn't find the speakers I'd listed, either - so I must be doing something very wrong. Sigh. I give up - and apologize for any upsetting information.

Ghia - I don't think your listing price is out of line at all - but there are so many half-price speakers out there these days that the bottom-feeders are hard at work.

I've already gotten e-mails wanting me to "deal" on the side, and whatever. But they also suggest a price of $130 for the pair. Yep - they're out there! I just said "nope."

IF I "re-find" the Monitors, I'll copy down listing number. Promise.

PS - the B & Ws are supposed to be delivered tomorrow. They're on their way down from Orlando tonight. Whew!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

Post Number: 2788
Registered: Dec-03
Ben, you have lost me.

This could be completely the wrong thread, but I read that "Cream" is doing a four-night stand in the Royal Albert Hall, London, on May 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th 2005. Somewhere on this forum are folk who may wish to be informed. Tickets are pricey, and being resold already. Their first concert for 35 years or so. http://www.royalalberthall.com/
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us