Like

Archive through May 11, 2006

 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3150
Registered: Feb-05
Now we're talkin'. Thay must be relatively attractive though (remember I'm married).
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1346
Registered: Dec-03
A little black spray paint does the trick! Good luck and good listening.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1341
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Rick is right about the pavers under the stands. Go to Home Depot or Lowe's - garden department - they have very attractive cement pavers for very little money. That will give you two inches of height - and be sound-dampers, as well. And heck,you can even put some latex paint on them if you want. . .

Also, go out and find some little rubber/silicone "bumpers" that you put on the edge of cabinet doors to stop the banging? They come in many sizes and shapes. Find some big ones, and put two on each of your top plates, under the front corners of your speakers, about 3/4" in from the front edge. that will tip back your speakers - it's what I did, and it works very well. My "bumpers" are a little more than a quarter inch thick, and you don't see them if you stick them back from the front edge of the speakers. Total cost for the project - Oh, about $6 or so.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1342
Registered: Oct-04
Art: You don't have a SAW?!?

that's positively un-Amerukan!!!!!

(grin)
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8318
Registered: May-04


If the budget is very tight and the look is very important, I would first of all determine whether two inches will make any significant difference to what you are hearing. With a decent dome tweeter, I doubt that you'll notice any difference.


I assume you are concerned about high frequency information being lost due to the height of the driver vs. your seated listening position. If that's the case, any experimentation should focus on the high frequencies while you ignore the rest of the spectrum. If you require the change in height, you can deal with the bass response and midrange at that time.


Get a book. Any book. A telephone directory will probably do. Put it on your stands and plop the speaker on top. Listen. Hear any difference with the change in height? Even if you only have one book under one speaker, it should be obvious whether you need to change the height.


Now try a prop under the front edge of the cabinet. Just tilt the speaker temporarily to determine if that is satisfactory or even makes any difference. If need be, hire a Hispanic to hold the speaker in the tilted position. This should only cost a few dollars as this is certainly work that no American will do. Hell, splurge and hire two Hispanics, one for each speaker.


The cheapest option is to move the position of the speakers and your listening chair. The closer you are to the speaker, the less loss is incurred due to dispersion. Also, many stand mounted speakers sound much better when heard in the near field.


After you've determined whether you even need to raise the speaker, let us know your budget.


Also, any home improvement shop will cut the lumber for you at about $0.50 per cut.


Finally, do not just assume your speakers need to be tightly fixed to the stands. Some speakers will sound better if you allow them some freedom and place the speaker on secure but not adhesive mounts.


 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1343
Registered: Oct-04
Jan: Good points all, sir.

In my case, I quickly determined that, by tilting my 705s back, they sounded much cleaner and "rounder." Tried it several times on-off-on - and knew it was right. Probably could have achieved the same thing with higher stands, but I don't like the looks of speakers on "stilts." So - tipping it was.

Art: good luck - with both speaker placement, and, uh, help-hiring! (grin)
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 580
Registered: Mar-04
OMG Jan!!! I'm sitting here at my desk at work. I *was* eating....I now have tears running down my face and half of a ham and cheese sandwich coming out my nose. Oh man................my co-workers around me surely think I'm gonzo now (as if they didn't before). Priceless.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8320
Registered: May-04


Hey, Sem, if none of them will wipe the cheese whiz off your face, you know who will do that job; don't you?




 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3152
Registered: Feb-05
A couple of years ago I hired a couple fella's from the local homeless shelter to help me move a TV (they weren't hispanic). Actually 25% of my coworkers are hispanic compared to about 10-15% of the population we serve. My district manager is also hispanic. So it appears that my hispanic friends are doing the work that I do (and above). BTW, I understand your statement and likely agree with your position.

Moving the speakers closer or changing the seating simply isn't possible as my speakers are a couple of feet in the room as is and the seat is the sofa in our living room which ain't goin' anywhere either. Keep in mind very small home.

I heard the Studio 20's and S2's at an audio store using higher stands than I use and liked the sound. I'm using the stand height that the manufacturer suggests.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8322
Registered: May-04


Uh, maybe it wasn't the stand that made the difference.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York USA

Post Number: 1223
Registered: May-05
Jan - I don't find your 'humor' funny in the least bit.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8325
Registered: May-04


Not everyone does.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3153
Registered: Feb-05
Jan, it was the stand. Stu I understand your distaste for Jan's comment but believe me Jan doesn't mean it the way it sounds. At first I was horrified then I remembered who said it and believed that I understood the inner meaning (perhaps a comment on our hair brained immigration policy).
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York USA

Post Number: 1224
Registered: May-05
I don't know if anyone else sees it, or I'm the only one who's willing to speak up here. Your comments are racist and very insulting. They have no place here.

My mother's parents came here from Italy and did a job or two that 'no American would do' in order to provide for their family. My father came here from Armenia and did the same. My step-father came here from Peru and was one of the Hispanics you refer to for a while.

You've claimed to be Italian. I'm sure someone in your family came here and did a job or two that 'no American would want to do' to provide for his/her family.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see how any of this is funny.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3154
Registered: Feb-05
Stu, I'm not sure who you are speaking to but I can say with some sureness that Jan is not a racist. My comment about our immigration policy, and I'm sure Jan will agree, is that we ar not treating our friends from south of the border (as a country not as individuals as I'm you all treat everyone with respect) fairly around immigration (at least).

I agree that perhaps it was not spoken appropriately and I admit that I am offended by the words but I'm also sure that the heart was in the right place. Jan, I'm not speaking for you so don't think that I don't believe that you can defend yourself (if you think you need to). After all you and I have tangled so I know you have it in you. The problem that I see here at ecoustics in general is that there seems to often be an undercurrent of racism (geez like America perhaps). But Jan, no I don't think so.

Stu, you don't need me to tell you that you have a right to feel how you do about Jan's comment as I've often beem offended by racist remarks here at the forum. I for one am sorry if anything anyone said offended you. You are one of the good guys.

It was a long day at work I'm sure I made no sense at all. As our friend Larry says "sigh, no double sigh".
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8327
Registered: May-04


My comments stand as posted. Unless you wish to petition the administrator for their removal. That's your right, Stu.


Are the comments not funny? I don't know, that's for each individual to decide. Are the comments racist? No, I didn't think so when I posted them and I don't think so now. If stereotypes are "racist" only when they are applied to a certain group, then I guess you could see it otherwise.

Are they absurd? Yeah, I didn't really expect Art to head to the shelter for some help with his hifi.

Are they bigotted? Yep! Proudly.

They are bigotted toward anyone, of any race, who skirts the system to provide a job that someone else won't do because the pay is so low you can't feed yourself with what you make from a day's labor. They are meant to insult anyone who profits from the work of others for menial wages. Here in Texas there are lots of people making lots of money from the work of immigrants and "Americans" who need to work and are willing to work. And those words are bigotted against all those who think minimum wage is a living wage. They are intended to insult anyone who has forgotten one of their family members once did a lousy job for lousy pay. Because they had to. They are bigotted against everyone who lets this situation pass as only the fault of the immigrant. They are bigotted towards anyone who hears the words "a job an American won't do" and doesn't find them offensive and ignorant. My words should suggest our nation's security and values can't be forgotten for $3 an hour or a 99 cent head of lettuce. They are bigotted against anyone who feels they can grift the system and then place the blame on the person they take advantage of. That applies to all sides of the argument. I understand they could be taken as bigotted by anyone who doesn't think the present situation in the United States regarding immigrants is reaching the heights of absurdity. They are bigotted against everyone trying to use this for their own political gain. But they are not bigotted against Hispanics, or Latinos, or Italians or Canadians who want a better life.


That's probably a lot to ask you to interpolate from a few words, Stu. But, I would have thought you knew me well enough at this point to know I don't pick on the little guys.




 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York USA

Post Number: 1226
Registered: May-05
Art -

My previous comment was directed towards Jan. Your post in between mine and his wasn't on my screen until after I hit the post message button. Sorry for the confusion.


Jan -

Before I start, I didn't mean to imply you were a racist; I said your remarks were. Even though I don't truly know you, I feel as though I know you well enough to bet you aren't. I usually do a pretty good job of reading between the lines, esp. your lines. This time I didn't. Had you said illegal aliens or something else along those lines and not soley said Hispanics, I would have understood exactly where you were coming from. On their own, the manner in which you initally stated your views and the two subsequent posts left a lot to be desired. They hit a little too close to home. I don't think I'm way out in left field here or the only one who may have felt this way, although I can't and shouldn't speak for anyone else.

I completely agree with your rebuttal and see where you were coming from. My family all came over from their respective countries legally. Maybe it's an oxymoron being the son and grandson of immigrants, but I'm strongly opposed to illegal immigration due to the reasons you stated.

Thank you for clarifying your views. Please understand why I said what I said. It's all water under the bridge on my end.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8329
Registered: May-04


"Hispanic" means, for too many people, illegal immigrant. Listening to the talk shows when this topic is covered and talking to neighbors, those who are strongly against immigration (apparently legal or not) equate the problem with only Hispanics. Save for the few who see the terrorists crossing our borders disguised as Hispanics. Hispanics are the most visible and therefore get the most stereoptypical reactions. Hispanic = illegal. Illegal = Hispanic. It is a stereotype and one that deserves being exposed for what it is. Yes, I asked a lot of all of you reading my remark. But I'm glad we could get to the meaning of the comments.



And I have to agree with Art. There are far too many racist remarks made on the forum. A cross section of America? Probably all too true.


 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 581
Registered: Mar-04
Now that I have all the ham and cheese out of my nasal passages let me, ever so briefly, chime in here. In no way whatsoever did I ever think for a minute that Jan's comments were at all intended as racist in nature. In fact the thought never even entered my mind until I read Stu's comments. The thought was then quickly discarded. I believed then, and still do, that Jan's comments were more a commentary on those four very insulting words we are are exposed to on pretty much a daily basis lately - "jobs Americans won't do." Quite disgusting really. Rates right up there with "so this--this is working very well for them."
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8331
Registered: May-04


Thin ice ahead!
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Irvington, New York USA

Post Number: 1227
Registered: May-05
Sem -

The misunderstanding has been clarified by myself and Jan. Lets move forward.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8332
Registered: May-04


Art - Were the stands in the shop the same brand as yours at home? When I sold Sound Anchors it was obvious the type of construction makes a significant difference in apparently similar type stands. Unless your speakers have a different tweeter than I am used to on Paradigms, I can't imagine two inches making a large difference in sound quality. Most people slouch at least two inches while listening to a few albums. What sort of improvements did you hear in the shop?





 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 582
Registered: Mar-04
Stu, I understand. I was simply clarifying my take on it. Forward it is...:-)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4139
Registered: Dec-03
I once measured the height of my tweeters, on their stands, and sawed 4" off the legs of my listening chair to bring my ears down to tweeter level.

The lady I was going out with married me, anyway. She still reminds me of this, from time to time.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4140
Registered: Dec-03
It definitely sounded better.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2303
Registered: Dec-04
Now theres a real American. With a SAW!
Huh Larry?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3160
Registered: Feb-05
Jan, the stands were a different brand and weren't as nice as the ones I have.

The sound of the tweeter in the v3 Studio series Paradigm speaker sounds nothing like the v2. I owned the the v2's and can say that with confidence.

The sound quality wasn't better at Fred's with the other stands the soundstage was taller which appealed to me. Just something that I would like to try.

When I slouch on my sofa to tweeter height I'm in the midst of a soft fluffy sofa back. I think that is part of the problem (and one that my solution will not in any way aleviate), but one that I can't do anything about. Remember, I didn't even know there was a problem until I went and listened to the speakers a little higher up. I'm just being a bit A/R.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8334
Registered: May-04


Then I would refer back to my post from yesterday to start the experiment. If the height is important, then you can proceed to make the change permanent.



 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1345
Registered: Oct-04
Art et al: Gentlemen, I'm simply amazed that you do not take into consideration the spread of sound that you get by tilting a speaker, vs. simply raising it two inches or so.

think on this: If you tilt a speaker back 1/4 of an inch, and then draw a straight line out from the tweeter or woofer (your choice) to your listening position - say, 12 feet out. What difference in "height" do you get?"

think - carefully - and you will quickly ascertain that by tilting the speaker a bit you will get greater "height" than by merely lifting the speaker vertically.

At least - something to consider.

Respectfully. . .LarryR
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3162
Registered: Feb-05
Makes sense Jan.

Larry, tilting the speaker changes more than just the height it changes the distance of the drivers from your ears in relationship to each other. I would prefer to leave that relationship intact as the manufacturer recommends for now. I may look at that later and do appreciate the suggestion.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4141
Registered: Dec-03
Tilting can have the added benefit that the speaker is off-axis for exciting room nodes.

I tilt my Quad ESLs back with a few coins under the front feet. The newer models (Quad 988 and 989) have a 5º tilt built-in.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1346
Registered: Oct-04
Art: you quite correct in wanting the drivers to be positioned the way the manufacturer intended. But. . .

When I tip back the speakers, they face me square-on, which, I think, is what the B&W folk intended. Unless I tip them, the tweeters are closer to me, as I "look down" on the speakers. With the 705s, I've found that I can sit off-axis on either side a bit, without sound degradation - but - I cannot sit off-axis vertically, especially having the tweeters more prominent than the woofers.

I've noticed quite an improvement in sound quality since doing the tipping-thang. But if your speakers now face you square-on, tipping won't help you.

Hope I'm making sense here. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1347
Registered: Oct-04
Art: The B&Ws, BTW, are on 19-inch Alphason stands, so they may not be as elevated as your speakers are in the first place.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1348
Registered: Oct-04
Art: The B&Ws, BTW, are on 19-inch Alphason stands, so they may not be as elevated as your speakers are in the first place.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1349
Registered: Oct-04
sorry about the double-post - big fingers, small keys.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3168
Registered: Feb-05
My Studio 20's are on mass loaded 24 inch Atlantis Pro stands.
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1347
Registered: Dec-03
Try this Art. Take your speakers off the stands, and place directly on the floor. Place a small block of wood or something under the front of the speaker to tilt it back (time align) 1-2 inches. Now give a good long, critical listen, and tell me what you hear.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3169
Registered: Feb-05
They'd be pointing at the bottom of the coffee table. Thanks guys but I heard something at an audio store I'd like to replicate if I can. I'm not trying to do a whole bunch of experimenting. Heck in a house the size of mine I'd have to put the coffee table (a nice scandinavian cherry table I might add) out on the back porch just to try your experiment. It's like filling the bath tub with water then jumping in....oops I forgot to leave room for me! Changes in my little house = displacement = very loving and tolerant wife giving "the look" (don't tell me you don't know "the look"). I'm really just trying to find out if I can place the stands on something without losing the coupling of the speaker to the floor and if so what.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4144
Registered: Dec-03
Ah, Art, reflections from a coffee table, not to mention its acoustic shadow.... Best put it in the porch, even with the speakers on stands. But then, yes, "the look"....

I've seen people (usually the female sort) with quite good speakers placed behind sofas, so they are out of sight.

Maybe it does not need saying, here, but a lot a people want sound that is ambient; it's just there, and has no direction.

The trick is to understand that sound is a bit like light. There is ambient light, where all you see is its reflections. But a TV is a source of light you look at; speakers are a source of sound you listen to.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Darkmusic

Dover, Delaware Usa

Post Number: 35
Registered: Apr-05
Rick:
Have you been experimenting with "Mapleshade" speaker stands?
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1348
Registered: Dec-03
RAC

I flat out stole (borrowed) the design principal. I modified a pair of wooden stands I had. I cut them down to 10". Cut new 2" thick maple top plates, and use their brass cones for tilt back, and floor isolation coupling. I have been listening to my Spendors on the stands for about a year and a half now. I totally buy into Pierre's theory that you should get books off tall stands and closer to the floor.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8344
Registered: May-04


Yep!
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2350
Registered: Dec-04
Sweet!
I wonder if the Ling's might enjoy the down low as well...

After all, stage monitors have been like this forever.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8351
Registered: May-04


Yes, but that's because the audience has to see over the speakers. I figure this placement is taking into account the pressure zone of the driver. When the driver is placed on a tall stand there is a reflection of the direct signal as it hits the floor. This creates a phase inconsistency with the direct signal which reaches your ears first. By placing the driver(s) close to the floor you minimize the time smearing effect of the stands. This is similar to what Crown uses in their PZM (pressure zone microphone). (http://www.crownaudio.com/pdf/mics/125576.pdf#search='crown%20pzm%20microphone')


When Rick first suggested this placement to me, I tried several positions in several rooms with the LS3/5a's. Overall my preference has been to place the speaker on its side which then puts both drivers in the pressure zone and manages both driver's reflections equally. A large TipToe brings the tilt of the cabinet to the right degree for tweeter placement. Right now I have the 3/5'as on a roughly two inch thick chunk of Corian for some solidity under the speaker rather than placing the speaker directly on top of the rug. (I tried a thick concrete paver to experiment with so the initial cost was $1.19 for each paver.) This horizontal placement puts the drivers even closer to the floor than Mapleshade suggests. The response from the Rogers is excellent. There is a smoother low end which reduces the BBC bass hump and is quite welcome from this placement. I've tried both the small NSM's and the KEF Cresta's in a similar position and all respond quite well to pressure zone placement. I have also used a pair of 26" concrete filled Sound Anchor stands in the back listening room and had good results. I've even used the college dorm stands made from two concrete blocks stacked on top of one another when I auditioned the Lings. As usual, solidity is the most important aspect of speaker placement. Remember though, I found the Lings do better when they are not BluTak'd down to the stands. Overall, I prefer the floor placement now that I've got the room worked out a bit more. This would seem to be another case of what you've been told for the last thirty years being wrong in at least some cases.


 

Bronze Member
Username: Darkmusic

Dover, Delaware Usa

Post Number: 36
Registered: Apr-05
Jan-- did you try the Emmas with floor placement/ tiltback?
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8355
Registered: May-04


I tried Emma on the two inch slab and about eight inches off the floor. I wasn't as happy with the performance of the tweeter in that position, though the difference was minimal and could be a function of my room layout. That doesn't mean you shouldn't experiment with any speaker in a lower than normal position. Finding what gives the best performance in your room and with your system should be mandatory for any speaker. I thought the ribbon tweeter in Emma needed a higher stand and no tilt back from the woofer position in my main room. That could be the limitations of the ribbon or might not even be the case with your room.


 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4151
Registered: Dec-03
I do hope she was a willing participant, Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8359
Registered: May-04


Very.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4152
Registered: Dec-03
That's OK, then.
 

Bronze Member
Username: Darkmusic

Dover, Delaware Usa

Post Number: 37
Registered: Apr-05
Jan and Rick:
I have been experimenting with low floor placement using some "Baby Advents" and the Ling II. I am using oak boards and 1" --2" tilt-back. Center imaging and Mono material is really interesting with fine bass. But instruments mixed hard left and hard right and stereo soundstaging just do not sound correct to me -- the sound seems to be comming from the floor.
Is this "floor sound" the result(s) you have experienced? If not, how should I go about re-engineering this placement?
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8387
Registered: May-04


I would start by making certain you're in the correct listening position. Particularly with the Lings the position of the enclosure relative to your position is critical. I find the low floor positioning works best with a near field listening position. I usually sit about seven feet from the plane of the speakers which are now spread about 10-11' apart. Obviously, there is a lot of toe-in involved in my set up. However, when I first tried the experiment with the 3/5a's, I found some sounds within the midrange would suddenly dive to the floor. Positioning the speakers on their sides made the difference in that case. If you have merely plunked the speakers on the floor in the same spot they sat when on stands, you might need to readjust your speaker position to accomodate the new sound you're hearing. Don't assume what was correct for a 28" height will work best for a floor placement. I would suggest you invest a few bucks in some concrete pavers as they will provide a more stable base for the speakers over the oak planks. Have the paver flat on the floor and tilt just the speaker enclosure. A spot of BluTak or similar will help at the back of the speaker. In my case, I use a single paper towel between the paver and the speaker enclosure. Aim the tweeter at your ears no matter whether the enclosure is on its bottom or on its side. You don't say what you are using to achieve the tilt back, but I would suggest it be something solid. I use a large TipToe which takes the Rogers' entire seven pounds of mass (?) and loads it to the paver. Work a bit with this positioning. It works well in many cases, but not all. If your room just isn't going to let you have the floor position, don't fight it. My back listening room has gone through several changes over the last year and at times I preferred the Rogers on the floor and at other times on the stands. As of right now, they are back low down and filling the entire front of the room with life-sized images from wall to wall and somewhat beyond at times. Most importantly, don't think of what you've always accepted as proper speaker placement as still being correct. This is a case of conjuring beyond the perimeters of the parallelogram. Think - Experiment - Listen - Think again.


 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1349
Registered: Dec-03
Jan is right on the money here. It's all about placement in YOUR room with YOUR speakers. Jan and I have very similar designed speakers. Keep in mind even with same design speakers, every room is different. Like the man said, keep experimenting and listen. You'll find the right placement.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1351
Registered: Oct-04
Jan: I hear you talk so much of "wide sound stages," and wonder what I'm missing in my room.

Here's my setup: the 705s are placed on 19-inch Alphason stands - sand-filled steel tubes with steel topplate and half-inch glass base spiked thru the carpet to cement. The speakers are spaced nine (9) feet apart, and toed in. My listening position is midway between them, about 13 feet from the speakers.

I get some sound stage, but not a lot. With my setup, are the speakers simply placed too close together?

BTW - I've played around with the tip-back issue, and they sound much fuller and warmer when raised up in the front by about 5/8 inch or so using rubber gaskets atop the metal top-plate. More tilt just makes them look strange, and the sound does not seem to improve further.

I know many people say to make an equalateral triangle out of the speaker-listening post measurements - and that may be my problem??

thinking, thinking. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8389
Registered: May-04


I don't know the answer for you, Larry. Ideal speaker position is different for each room with every pair of speakers. And, for each listener there may be more than one position that is best for their listening tastes. You might find, with each system and room, several positions that actually work well but give slightly different results. You set the system up to balance the various qualities you deem important. I will tell you that where the speakers "have" to be is never the best spot for them to sit.


Many months ago I went through the speaker set up procedure I used to do for clients but I can't remember where it is in the archives. It is fairly elaborate, so I don't want to go through the entire procedure again. Most of the tweeking after the basic position was determined involved setting the speakers up with as much symetry as the room would allow. When the speakers work into identical spaces, the direct and reflected sound all arrives at your ears in time with the other channel's information. This is a large part of how you begin to get really excellent soundstaging. My set up method involves laser pointers and measuring tapes to get to the final position. Treating the room surfaces to get the correct mix of reflected sounds is part of the set up also.


I would start you off by suggesting you put "speaker placement" into a search engine and begin reading about how the manufacturers suggest you go about this procedure. For the most part, the "rule of thirds" is the set up I begin with. However, this places the speakers well into the room as the basic rule dictates the best speaker position is at the one third dimension of the room. For my slightly more than 21' deep room, that means my little Rogers are set about 7' out from the front wall. There is substantial damping material between the speakers and the front wall is damped as well. Not all rooms can accomodate this speaker position so I also recommend you look at the Wilson set up; http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/waspe.html


Not all systems are going to give the very wide soundstage that my system produces. To begin with, this is a priority for me so my components have been chosen with this quality in mind. Second, not all components or speakers can do this soundstage no matter how well you set the system up. I don't want this to sound wrong, but the move from a component such as NAD to the McIntosh tube gear I own is a large part of the soundstage I achieve. While the NAD gear has many things it does well, the Mac is just a better component. In my HT room with the NAD pre amp and HK power amplifier combination, the soundstage is quite good but not in the same league as the two channel Mac system. So I don't know what to tell you to expect as the best your system can produce. The B&W speakers can do an excellent soundstage, though it is different from the 3/5a sound, when they are fed the correct signal. You might want to stop by a NAD dealer and ask to hear their best NAD set up to judge for yourself what NAD is capable of producing. I suspect SM would say the soundstage improved considerably when she went from the NAD receiver to her Mac integrated amplifier.


I will tell you the little Sonic Impact amplifier and its Italian cousin I wrote about here, https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/forum/home-audio/193312.html
and here, https://www.ecoustics.com/electronics/products/reviews/209464.html, have very impressive soundstaging. Even with the $200 KEF speakers I used with both amps, the soundstage filled the room and placed some images outside the physical boundaries of the space in a very natural staging. In many ways the soundstage is nearly as good as my Mac tubes and they are very impressive for their cost (or any cost, actually) but I doubt you would be happy with their sound if you wanted to drive the B&W's; there's just not enough power to do the job correctly would be my guess. However, if you want an amplifier with only one knob for volume control, you might want to look into the SI amp. There are plenty of speakers it will drive quite well and they needn't be expensive. It means listening to only one source unless you get an external switch box for your tuner, but that still might work. For $25-30 it's an interesting experiment.


Speaker placement will help and is where I would begin with your system. But, the sort of placement that really works well is one that sets the speakers in place and then they don't move. I don't know if that works domestically for you. I've suggested to clients who couldn't let speakers sit out in a room that they mark the position of two corners of the speaker or stand with a small loop of thread that will stand out from the carpet. This lets you place the speakers with accuracy each time you listen and still return them to them the resting position easily. Unfortunately, sharing the room with a TV is tough when it comes to soundstaging. I've never heard a system really do its best when there is large, resonant box in between the two speakers unless the box is very heavily damped when listening to music. This is quite a bit of hassle if you aren't the only one listening to the system.


Some people use large baffles which fit around the speaker and aid in soundstaging. That's a bit of a stretch for most domestic situations. Also, a pair of Tube Traps placed just at the speaker's inside edge or dead center between the speakers help staging. Several traps along the front wall and in the front corners will often open up the soundstage when the speakers are placed well into the room.


Finally, the recording has to have this sort of potential for soundstaging before the equipment can make it appear. I will tell you, as an example, the Bill Evans' discs all fill the front of my room and push back the front and side walls. The staging in front of me is quite acceptable as a small jazz group playing in a club as I sit about 12-15' away in the audience. Well recorded chamber music is a snap. Most symphonies can recreate a stage that is reminiscent of what I hear from the audience with a stage width that easily touches both side walls 15' apart and spans about 80% of my visual field. Individual performers are life sized and not shrunken down to a size which would suggest they had been recorded at a great distance or just simply shrunk. (This is what I most often hear from good mid priced gear; a sounstage that just sounds like is isn't the right size or shape.) On my system, of course, individual performers sound as if they are singing into a microphone so the presentation varies with how closely mic'd they are recorded. Images do vary as I hear the performer move closer or farther from the capsule. With this comes a fair degree of three dimensionality and ambient sound to fill the "empty" spaces around the performers and, on the best recordings, the space of the venue. Plucked strings on an acoustic bass sound as if they occupy a physical space and aren't just flat in the room. Same for most instruments. Pianos have a soundboard which spans the space they actually occupy - depending on the recording.


That's what I hear. That's what I chose my components for. That's what I tried to get for my clients. That is, in my opinion, what you should aim for.


 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1354
Registered: Oct-04
Jan: Good points all, sir. With my thanks.

I have several things going against me: a room that is really most of a house - all open spaces and hard walls that stretch out for more than 30 feet; a TV "Box" that does, indeed, intrude between the speakers; and a wife who dictates the overall look of the living room.

Oh, Mer is quite forgiving on many points, but when I tacked up sound-absorbing panels behind the speakers, and pronounced that they suddenly sounded "great" - well, she took one look and acidly commented that perhaps those panels should disappear. (grin) (shudder)

I have, indeed, looked up speaker placement on the I-net - and even have a hard-copy of your previous "how to set up speakers" in my files.

As to the "NAD sound" - this is something that goes into places where I've commented before: I have a hard time making judgement calls on equipment. What sounds warm or full or cold to so many of you may just sound "ordinary" to me. I would like to be able to A-B the NAD and a McIntosh - but the only emporium of lost hope and fidelity in town has no provision for that. Sigh. . .

I shall continue to move about my 705s - already having determined that they sound much warmer when within about 8 inches of the wall, and not farther out in the room. Even the B&W site says they should be farther out - but they sound very thin to me, so back they went. (plus, Mer says she hates stuff "sticking out in the room" - sigh)

A never-ending problem, isn't it? Guess so. . .

But thanks - again - for words of wisdom, Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1355
Registered: Oct-04
. . .later in the ayem.

Well, it ain' a song title, but "what a difference a foot makes!" what happened. . .

I decided to do a bit more speaker-tweaking, and so put on the Jim Hall "Concierto" CD and got myself into furniture-moving mode. Hmm. . .

First - I moved the right speaker to the right about 6 inches. Then I moved the left speaker to the left 6 inches - toed in very slightly more, not much.

Went back to my listening couch - and was simply amazed at the difference! Suddenly, there was, indeed, a "sound stage" where before there had just been - well - stereo. The instruments were better-defined and the overall sound smoothed out a tad.

To see if it was voodo, last night's Scotch, or my aging brain - I moved the speakers back to their original position - easily seen by the spike-holes in the carpet. No comparison - the sound caved in on itself and got "flat." I simply could not believe this was happening!

Moved the speakers "out" again - this time even farther, but there was no real sound-gain. So back to the first, extended, position. Sat down and just plain enjoyed the music.

Thanks, Jan - you got the liddle gray cells working again - and the music is even better because of that. Back to listening. . . . . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4154
Registered: Dec-03
That's good to read, Larry. It certainly makes a difference. The stereo can get better, over a wider listening area, with a steeper toe-in, but there can be a trade-off with frequency response.

I've always found that the good old equilateral triangle, with the speakers and listener at each apex, is a good layout to start. It is not always consistent with furniture arrangement, of course. Or with social listening.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1356
Registered: Oct-04
John - I'm still amazed that just a few inches on either side can do what it did in my setup. I don't quite have an equilateral triangle - but it's closer than it was.

social listening? Ummmm . . .not much of that going around in our house. I'm either alone (most of the time) or with Mer on the sofa. We don't have very many friends who share our music tastes! Most of them are in the Pop/Rock category.

Art: Was noodling around on the I-net - and the Audio Refinement Complete Alpha CD player that you have commented favorably on is for sale at the Spearit Sound website. Reg. price is over a grand, and it is for sale - with free remote - for $645. Sounds like a great deal to me - if I only needed a CD-only player. Check it out. . . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1357
Registered: Oct-04
OOPS - forgot to add, John A. - I've found that I can get off-axis with the 705s - horizontally but not vertically. A bit to either side is fine - but the speakers get quite screechy if the tweeters are even an inch lower than my ears. I've got them tilted back now - and the shrill quality is minimalized.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4155
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks, Larry. By "social listening" I meant anything with more than just oneself as the audience. This does not happen so often for me, either.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3217
Registered: Feb-05
The Audio Refinement line has been discontinued in favor of a new YBA line called YBA Design. This represents a last chance for the CD Complete Alpha.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1359
Registered: Oct-04
Art: thanks for the update - didn't realize the gear change. . .as I can't afford it anyway.

I'm still waiting for a good player that will allow me to use SACDs and CDs - as well as DVD movies. I know, I know. . .dedicated players must be better -especially if one has the cash!

Will look up the YBA Design gear. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1360
Registered: Oct-04
Art: YUM! Yves-Bernard Andre's 201 CD player looks like a million bucks - and probably sounds that good, as well. Sigh. Double sigh. It's only $1,495 USD - about a thousand above my budget. Oh, well. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3233
Registered: Feb-05
I just listened to that player and the matching integrated yesterday for the second time. Youre right YUM! Very nice for the bucks.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1361
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Wouldn't it be nice if the company made a better-than-good universal player as well? I'm sure that they want only "purists" to buy their gear, but for those of us who have carnal knowledge with more than one format, well. . . (grin) (It IS a French company, after all!!)

Maybe I'll win the Lotto this week?

I told Mer yesterday - after our second round of house-guests departed - that if we'd stop trying to feed the world I'd have enough cash for some bettah HiFi stuff. She sniffed and said that what I have is "quite good enough." Sigh. Do I hear a chorus of "WAF, WAF - haf-tah consider the distaff half!" Hmm. . .maybe there's hope for me as a song writer? Nah. . . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3235
Registered: Feb-05
I dunno Larry. When my universal dies I will not likely replace it with another. I believe that all of my SACD's (20 or so) are hybrid and I only listen in 2 channel. The last couple of years has made me realize just how good CD really is. There are some truly wonderful sounding universals by Ayre, Linn and others but they cost a bunch.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1363
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Sigh - no, double sigh. Am I damned forever in mediocre-land? Guess so. . .(grin?)

Guess I'm just out of my league on this forum - and had better just shut up and bear it! (double grin)

So it goes. . .

With great respect. . .LR
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3236
Registered: Feb-05
I understand as my system is certainly mediocre. It seems that for the most part this forum is for us with mediocre systems. Audiogon on the other hand......goodness those folks must have money marbles and chalk as my Father used to say.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2434
Registered: Dec-04
You mean I can get to mediocre one day? Oh boy!
Seriously, Art you have a beauty there, it just took a few decades to get there.
If I add up all the money trying to get where I want to be(failed so far),I could have just bought it today.
PF's gear looks very nice from here, he seems quite the shopper.

However, as we tried to explain to Eddie a while back, it's all in the seat of the pants, and one piece can upset the balance, or even it out.

Larry, if you picked up a cdp it would lessen the load on your universal as well using the cd for redbook selections.
Hey, Im tryin'.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4169
Registered: Dec-03
Larry,

There is no league. That is a nice system you have there.

I shelled out on a June HiFi News. It seems like voye_rism. They have monthly profiles of systems owned by fanatics who have endless dosh but no lives, or so it seems to me.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2436
Registered: Dec-04
Regular reviews of 100k systems get old after a while.
'Sounds very full'. Ya THINK?

Like road and track 'the Ford GT goes very fast'.NEWS FLASH!

I rather enjoy small pleasures and discoveries on a more mondane and utilitarian level(even if I have to look up a bit for that).

John, I think the fanatics with dosh have someone else do the work as well. Where's the fun?

Larry, you have been on your player for a while, I am not sure if it is better to go toes-up right away or last forever and work well.

Probably the latter, as is usually the case, rather than have the point pushed upon one.(I hate when that happens)
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8414
Registered: May-04


It's easy to figure how those with marbles and chalk got the money. I think the idea is to avoid those folks - if you want to have any money.


 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1364
Registered: Oct-04
Ah, yes - good points all, good forum-members. And now I'm stuck in the middle again. Sigh.

The Yammie crappped out again last night, as I was trying to play a DVD. turned it off, then on, and it came back to life for awhile. It will not last long. . .

Mer has set a $500 USD limit for any new player - as we're really trying to get the new car this year. Hmm. . . .with that limit I'm afraid that I won't be in anybody's "league" except the Best Buy Boys.

the new HK DVD-47 is not yet on the open market, and I guess my friend was right: they've had a problem with it. But it still calls - the price is right - and if friend Verne is correct, it sounds very much above its price point. We'll see. . .

Nuck: you post: "I am not sure if it is better to go toes-up right away or last forever and work well.

Probably the latter, as is usually the case, rather than have the point pushed upon one"

I don't understand what you mean - must be my musty brain?
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3237
Registered: Feb-05
Indeed Jan.

Larry, I'll be doing some research on universals in your price range. We must find you a suitable player. Hopefully their will be a place in your area for auditioning.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2448
Registered: Dec-04
Larry, my meaning was for your player to push up daisies right away, and force a decision, as compared to (hopefully) continue to soldier on.
Apparantly it may be the former(unfortunately).

However, Art's post sounds full of hope.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1365
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Just got off the phone with friend Verne in LA - and after pleading, yelling, posturing and bowing, he agreed to "poll" his fellow audio engineer-friends. He'd earlier called around, given them my price points and requirements, and then got an "average" recommendation from them.

Surprise to me - the engineers said "no way" should I get the HK DVD-47. Apparently there are design flaws, especially in video, and it is I guess a lemon so far. Sigh.

OK - told them of Mer's 500-buck limit - and they said I had to go over that to get "good" quality. Sigh again. After recommending several $2,000 units, which I immediately rejected, three of the guys said: "tell him to get the Cambridge 640c - but get the version 2, not the 1.

So - I thanked Verne and went shopping and reviewing. Seems like I remember you talking about the Cambridge units before, Art (sorry, brain doesn't hold info or water!) and at the time I thought "too much money."

But now I see that I can get one if I tweak Mer's limit just a bit - about 60 bucks worth. From what I read, the Cambridge would be about perfect.

To all: Whadda y'all tink? Should the ole scribe bite the bullet and get the Cambridge? Polling, polling. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1366
Registered: Oct-04
So anyway - now he calls back, embarrassed.

Seems that ev-body "fergot" about SACD and DVD. Hmm. . .so - scrap the Cambridge - still looking around. I gotta start thinking for myself! (grin)
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1367
Registered: Oct-04
Uh - (blush) - does this ole dog get a second chance? Please?

Verne is embarrassed, I'm disappointed, and still working toward sure Yammie self-destruction. Sigh.

OK - I read a lot about the Marantz DV6600 - and I can get it just under the $500 limit. Any help would be greatly appreciated, guyz. . .

And Art - I really, really wish I could read that Cambridge had just brought out the 640 in universal player form! It's 87 and 89 universal players sound a bit weak for me.

All thoughts gratefully accepted. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3238
Registered: Feb-05
The Cambridge Audio Azur 540D is the best sounding CD/DVD player under $500 that I've heard but unfortunately it does not play SACD and DVD-A. You may be in Denon country with your budget. They have 2 very nice universals in the DVD1920 and DVD2910 that can be had for less than 500.00. You may have to shop online to get the DVD2910 for that price but the DVD1920 retails for under 400.00. Both would more than likely outperform the old Yammie.

There is also the Integra DPS 6.5 which also may be worth a look. It retails for about 500.00 and is said to have very respectable performance.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3239
Registered: Feb-05
I have the Marantz DV6500 and a Denon DVD2910. The Denon is the better of the 2 IMO. The DV6500 and most likely the DV6600 is very slow at layer change and has very poor CD performance. You may want to listen to it as your mileage may vary. I did like the SACD peformance, but still not up with the Denon.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2452
Registered: Dec-04
Now that's shopping!
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1368
Registered: Oct-04
Nuck: "Yep.

Art: You mention the 6500 - but I understand the 6600 is much better - from what I read.

Still - I like the "sound" of the Cambridge 89 universal player - IF - it comes up to standards. Sigh.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3240
Registered: Feb-05
Perhaps you may want to give the DV6600 a demo. I believe that the layer change has improved but I'm not sure about the sound. In any case I'm sure it would outperform the Yammie. You'll never know if you don't give it a try. Marantz CD and DVD players have great warranties as well (unfortunately they too often need them).
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1369
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Yeah, I'm looking around here to see if anybody's got one in stock. Will report. . .

Meanwhile, I got an e-mail from the folks at OneCall, the Online place I buy some audio/video gear from - and they report that their feedback on the HK DVD-47 has been all positive - so far. The jury's out. . .

Has anybody on the Forum researched the Cambridge DV89? It's their newest universal player, but the low price makes me hesitate. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3241
Registered: Feb-05
The Cambridge DV89 player looks good Larry. I would check it out way before looking into the Marantz. I will call my Cambridge dealer today and ask her what kind of feedback sha has received about it.

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/ToneNZMay06DVD89.pdf
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1370
Registered: Oct-04
Art: good mornin' from Swampville! And an advance "thank you" for talking with your Cambridge dealer. In looking around, I'm more and more drawn to the Cambridge 89 - in part based on my friends' rave reviews of their CD player.

the price is right - the look is great - and the specs are surely better than the slowly-dying Yammie?

I've never been a Marantz fan - but the spectre of the HK DVD-47 still hangs over my head - and if the Cambridge turns out not to be my cup of tea, I might go to Amazon and pick up a DVD-47 for trial. At least with Amazon there is a great return policy! I await feedback on the Amazon web site - where I see the DVD-47 for sale at $286 USD - way down from the previous low price of $349 on several web sites. Does this tell me something? Hmm. . .

I'm going to post on the DVD player forum - to see if people there have used either machine.

thanks again - LR
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3242
Registered: Feb-05
Marantz and HK are "six in one hand, half a dozen in the other". I'm hoping I hear good things about the Cambridge. I'm in meetings all mornning (leaving for work here in 10 minutes) and will have an opportunity to call this afternoon. I'll let you know when I get home from work this evening. I'll likely look at the forum at lunch but will not have called yet because the owner doesn't get into the store until mid afternoon. Cheers!
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1372
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Wow - haven't heard that phrase in a loooonnnng time - my Grandma used to use it, and I'm surprised that "young whipper-snappers" such as you would still have it in mind! (grin)

Looking forward to your preview info of the CA DVD89.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3243
Registered: Feb-05
Ok Larry, I spoke to both Terri and Brett at Stereotypes in Portland today. They stated that Cambridge just began taking orders from dealers for the DVD87 and 89. They stated that the Cambridge website hasn't been correct about the model numbers (87 instead of 79). The 87 will retail for 299.00 and the 89 at 399.00. They also carry the Integra DPS 6.5 and stated that it is a very good performer for the money. They stated that it is one of the most reliable machines that they carry. 3 year warranty that is rarely used. Video and multi channel performance is outstanding and they believe will top that of the Cambridge. They both believe that for CD's the Cambridge will be stiff competition. The Cambridge disc players have consistently been good value products and perform above their price.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2467
Registered: Dec-04
Art, you are going the mile!
Larry, this may be the tip o' the month.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1373
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Just got rid of dinner-guests - and want to thank you very much for all your hard work on my behalf.

I'm pretty sure that the Cambridge or Integra will soon be gracing a shelf in my listening room!

The Yammie shuddered and shook again today, and Mer is now afraid to use it, for fear she will "break it." Yeah, fat chance! (grin)

I'll probably order a new machine within the next week or so - but wil either have to drive to Sarasota (2 hours) or get a machine Online. Our emporiums of lost hope and fidelity in Swampville don't carry the Cambridge line. Sigh.

Again, Art - THANK YOU!
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3244
Registered: Feb-05
Don't know how much help I was but you are most welcome.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1374
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Much help - for sure, sir.

Our "one small ray of hope" store here does carry the Integra 6.5 - so will away to audition tomorrow. But with my luck, they won't have one in stock! Sigh.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4170
Registered: Dec-03
I've been following this and would just like to say you have a good recommendation there, Larry. I did not know Cambridge Audio did SACD, too. Thanks, Art.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1375
Registered: Oct-04
To all: Sigh. Well, I tried to audition the Integra- but the one store here did not have one on display, and only would agree to "un-box" one if I was serious about buying it. Well, said I:"that's why I want to audition it, to see if I want it." That got us into a tiffing match, and I finally just walked out. So much for that! (huff, huff)

John: Yes - only the newest Cambridge - the DVD89 - will play SACDs. The closest dealer to our faire towne is Sarasota - 2 hours' drive away. I'll have to see about phoning them first, then going up if they have a demo model.

My friend (former friend? grin) in LA says that one of his cronies now sells hi-end audio stuff in West Palm Beach, Flawed-duh! - so I'll call over there to see what he says. It's on the other side of the state - but I did look on his web site, and they feature both Adcom and Cambridge, along with Pioneer Elite and a couple of esoteric, very expensive, players. We'll see what he has to say about the Cambridge.

Mer suggests that I just chuck it all - buy a Krell - and forget about such things as new cars and groceries. She was kidding - I hope! (double grin)

Hmmm. . .black cloud has caught me again - - even as I type this Mer is in the room, informing me that the phone call moments ago was her brother - saying that Mer's mom has had a stroke and is hospitalized. Sigh. Well, I may be away from the Forum for awhile if we have to drive up to Sebring, just over 2 hours away. Will post more anon. . .
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 583
Registered: Mar-04
Sorry to hear that Larry, my thoughts are with you and Mer.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1376
Registered: Oct-04
Sem: Thank you, sir. Just got off the phone with the doctors, who say it was a "mild" (yeah, sure) stroke, and there is some facial and hand paralysis - which may go away in time. She is doing well, and all we can do now is sorta watch and sait. Sigh. Mer is OK.

On with life. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1377
Registered: Oct-04
(blush) make that "wait," OK?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2475
Registered: Dec-04
Odd how any stroke can be 'mild' when it doesn't happen to you or yours.

Give her a hug, Larry.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1378
Registered: Oct-04
Nuck: thanks. And I never figgered out just what doctors mean by "mild stroke." Hmm. . .

OK - got on the phone and had an, uh, "interesting" talk with John (Verne's friend) today. He says they don't try to carry the super-esoteric stuff, because they like to keep selling and not just keep the gear around to show off to people. Good point.

they carry NAD, Adcom, Creek, Cambridge Audio, some toshiba and some Pioneer Elite.

He said that "within your price range" (make that "poor") he thought the Cambridge 89 was the player for me - though he also touted the Pioneer Elite as being "very musical." Hmm. . .

He said that the "guts" of the Cambridge are the same as the "oppo" players in Europe - and are very stable. (never heard of oppo) But he allowed as how the 89 was brand new, and thus might have some bugs in it. He's only sold two - and neither has come back yet, so he guesses they're OK.

He is NOT an SACD man - says he thinks the format will soon die (where have we heard that before??) and to forget about building an SACD library. A bit late for me, as I already have 47 discs.

Anyway - I think the CA 89 will be for me, but I'll wait as long as the Yammie doesn't self-destruct. I never like to buy "new models" of anything.

Thank all for your input and extra work.

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us