You have to spend a lot to realize you don't have to spend a lot. This little system is so cheap it's embarassing to post here; but not if you heard how good it sounds! I consider myself fortunate that I have found satisfaction with such a modest system. Really good sound for not much money! Doesn't mean I'm off the upgrade path but now it's for fun, not necessity.
LISTENING STYLE
Rhythm and melody. Deep bass, LOTS of detail, and soundstaging are of secondary importance.
Volume levels 70-75dB
Room is 13 x 15 and highly reflective.
BACKGROUND
My hi-end stereo journey began in 2001 when my single driver Panasonic RX-C20 mini-system broke. I wanted a nice stereo my whole life so I got:
Nautilus 804's
Musical Fidelity A3cr power amp
Adcom GFP-750 preamp
Cary 303-100
Audioquest Granite speaker / Python (?) I'C's
The sound never seemed right, especially for the price. I listened to a lot of other stereos which also didn't sound right, especially for the money. There was always something wrong with the sound of every stereo I heard, regardless of cost.
My stereo began hurting my ears, partly due to my reflective room. I was still not feeling comfortable with the money spent on my "monument to materialism". I realized there was NO upgrade that would fix the sound and make it worth the money. I had to make a complete reversal and go all the way back to where I got off track and sold everything. I lost over $3,000 but consider it an education having never lived with a good stereo before and see the improvements. Now if I went back to expensive stuff again and the sound was less than perfect- fool me twice shame on me. I'd be throwing money away, good money after bad so to speak.
Because:
1) No matter how much money is spent, nothing is perfect.
2) In the hi-end merry-go-round, everything is obsolete in a year or two.
3) I would instantly loose 1/2 my money ($1,000+) if I wanted to sell. I could buy used but it's not fair to listen at the dealer then buy it used at the 'gon IMHO. Plus I'd always be wondering how brands X, Y, Z would sound in comparison. It could take a long time and shipping expense to buy them all used. Plus I wonder about the condition of used stuff.
4) If I could buy an expensive stereo and not give it another thought for 10+ years, like my car then, okay. But hi-end stereo is not that way.
My audio epiphany happened when I heard Epos M-15 / Creek in a small room. Detailed yet still musical. Very natural sound and made my B&W sound mechanical by comparison. No crossover components and the x-over above 5,000hz. Not a knock on B&W style of sound - studio monitors are made to tear the music apart to do the mixing.
So went back to my single driver roots and built some Tang-Band W3-871s single driver speakers:
I was going to build 2-way until I saw how complex it is to not just design the x-over but get it to SOUND right - if that's ever possible at all. I get adequate bass with the speakers up against the wall and some bass boost from the Denon's eq. Single driver speakers sound very natural and even tonally. I didn't realize how natural until I went back to listen to multi-way speakers - ugghhh. I always thought:
1) B&W with millions in R&D to spend could make a multi-way speaker sound as good as a single driver but with more LF, HF, and volume. I was wrong. Nobody can.
2) The engineers at B&W were the experts and KNEW how recorded music was SUPPOSED to sound. Wrong again - to my ears. I don't think Paradigm, JM Labs, Harbeth Compact 7es-2(wanted to run from room screaming they were so bad - Super HL5 / Naim were okay), are any better. So I don't blame B&W. It's just the way multi-driver speakers are. I am still amazed at how poorly $3,000+ speakers measure and sound in some areas compared to my $200 single driver speakers. Truly amazing.
I don't want 1st order x-over with room acoustic problems and head-in-vice sweet spot or big, room consuming, e-stats. I don't want the colorations of horn-loaded speakers and don't listen loud enough to require them. Now my speakers sit on the mantle. You can't imagine how nice it is not to worry about tripping over speakers and not having shades on the windows because the sun would fade the cherry veneer. Let the sun shine in!
Every component in the audio chain produces sound in it's entirety except (most) speakers. Read most any article on speakers and they start with "a single driver can't cover the full frequency range" and they discount the entire concept out of hand. True, but multi-way designs are a COMPROMISE vs. a single driver, not better in every way. I like them a lot, but $45,000 Rockport Antares are compromised in some ways when compared to my $200 speakers. Audio can be really strange. I don' t listen over 75dB so don't need the high volumes anyhow.
Why single driver?:
1) Perfectly phase and time coherent ANYWHERE in the room.
- Sound is reproduced as it was created. Harmonics are not destroyed as with multi-way speakers.
- I could never relax and be satisfied with multi-way because they just never sounded right. One reason I was always on the upgrade path. I couldn't just ignore the sound problems and resign myself to living with it - not for a $10,000 system cost.
- Sound is very natural. Even my girlfriend has been tricked by firetruck sirens in a song, for example, and thought they were outside - something that never happened with multi-way speakers.
2) No change in tonality crossing over to drivers of different materials. Every material has it's own "sound" be it metal, paper, kevlar, etc.
3) Beaming over 3kHz has eliminated the 7dB peak at 5kHz that ALL multi-ways produced in my room. And I don't need ANY room treatments to get flat F-R from 80-18 kHz either. One less thing to buy or trip over.
4) Perfect timing - PRAT if you will. These have better rhythm that any multi-way I've heard unless x-over is 5kHz or higher.
5) No x-over to absorb power, detail, and musical dynamics. Sound is detailed in a natural way without distortion you get from electronical components in the path of the hi-powered electrical between the speakers and the power amp. Passive crossovers do much more damage to the music than by placing crossover components BEFORE the power amp - such as an active x-over. I want as little as possible between the hi-powered outputs of my amp and the speaker driver. I realized a lot of the hi-fi "buzz" is just HF distortion, not detail or better sound.
6) Easy to drive with any amp. Not just because of no x-over. Mine has an easy 8 ohm load and no sharp phase angles or wild swings in impedance like you get from x-overs and blended drivers.
Read the paragraph "The Quest for that Old-time Religion".
So after 4 years of staying up until 3am surfing the net, going to endless dealers, etc, I think I've finally found the basic path to follow. Thank God, I never thought it would happen.
I now use the Marantz CDR-500 exclusively because the Denon DAC was incoherent, jumbled and fuzzy in comparison. It also took power from the small power supply.
Next up is 4" single driver which I hope will give adequate bass extension without eq.:
If I can get adequate bass without eq. I'll build this LM3875 gainclone:
http://www.audiosector.com/lm3875.shtml
and Scott Nixon non-oversampling DAC:
http://www.scott-nixon.com/dac.htm
DIY is good :-). DIY takes time to do so it slows me down from changing stuff out every few months. DIY also makes it impossible to justify a $1,000+ amp when I can make one for $200 or so. I'd be spending time on the chat sites anyhow so might as well put the time to good use and make stuff myself.
Hi Sean. I have all three twisted together. I originally had the 2 sets of 3 wires separated but this caused problems so now the + and - , three strands each are all just twisted together. The enamel wire coating allows close placement since it is only air dielectric. I should probably go Goertz. Are there any low cost suppliers of flat enamel copper foil? I will have to do a search sometime. Also considered low cost powere conditioning like islation x-former but don't know how much improvement and cost seems far North of $50.00. So just dedicated lines for now. Got rid of the Tripp-Lite Isotel as I think it was putting out some nasty HF rubbish that was giving me ear pain. Sort of like a digital amp. Hey do you ever have guests over? I'd love the hear your showroom. Sounds like you have enough innovative stuff to warrant a Stereophile feature. Thanks for the help.
Thanks Sean. Those Ohm F's sound very interesting. While I'm still trying, I have had a hard time finding a suitable improvement. Currently looking into modding standard paper drivers to eliminate resonant peaks. Right now, running a driver larger than 3" gives harsh breakups that aren't too pleasant for long term listening. I read your threads about solid vs. stranded and that was a factor in me trying the magnet wire. Not as good as the Mapleshade stuff or Audiquest but it's in the ballpark and has a similar tonality which is the big thing for me. I really lucked out with synergy. Have been switching out foam damping material inside the speaker. I've discovered even something as simple as foam can have a big impact on the clarity vs. brightness issue.
The road to audio hell is paved with well-intentioned multi-way speakers. In its most benign implementation, as a two-way, the music is split apart between a woofer/midrange and a tweeter, typically in the octave from 2 to 4 kHz. The fundamentals are reproduced by the woofer/midrange, while most of the harmonics are assigned to the tweeter. This then is the sonic equivalent of that kitchen wonder - the Veg-O-Matic. You slice and dice harmonic textures with the hope that somehow the drivers can then properly synthesize the musics waveform. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to realize that when these drivers are mounted on a loudspeaker baffle, often with their acoustic centers 6-inches apart, that sonic integration is problematic. The differences in time delay between each driver and the listening seat typically result in severe interference effects in the frequency range overlapped by the drivers. In an effort to better integrate the transition region, many designers have pushed the tweeters crossover frequency lower, sometimes precipitously close to its free-air resonance. This approach is based on the firm acoustic ground; in that driver spacing becomes a smaller fraction of the wavelength at a lower frequency. Hence, a lower crossover frequency minimizes interference effects and produces a smoother transition between the drivers over a larger sweet spot at the listening seat. While such a solution results in a smoother frequency response, often the sound quality is far worse because of increased distortion. That poor tweeter is made to work much harder than it really wants to. In the end, it is reduced to painful screaming. This problem is endemic to many modern designs, and it doesnt matter whether that 1-inch dome tweeter is made of fabric, plastic, paper, metal, Kevlar, or even cheddar cheese. As a musical peak hits the tweeter, its distortion spectrum rises sharply, and in addition, it compresses the musics dynamics. To make matters worse, all this happens in the upper midrange (2 4 kHz), where the ear is most sensitive. I dont care how old you are, or how much high-frequency hearing loss you may have suffered, our auditory system is optimized for acuity just in this range. By definition, distortion in this range is very audible and objectionable. I have literally cringed when auditioning $10K and even more expensive speakers while trying to reproduce something as simple as female voice.
There was a time, two generations ago, when the full-range cone driver reigned supreme. In an age when the radio console together with the shellac 78-rpm record defined audio quality, a frequency range of 60 Hz to 9 kHz was about as wide a window as was needed or desired for the enjoyable reproduction of available source material. If anyone dared to open the window any wider especially in the treble - they ran the risk of exposing gremlins such as needle scratch and other high-frequency hash and noise. With the advent of the high-fidelity phenomenon in the 50s, the audio industry moved inexorably toward multi-way loudspeakers, such as two and three-way designs, as a means of expanding the bandwidth at the frequency extremes. The advertising campaigns/hype at the time were so effective, that for many people Hi Fi became synonymous with bandwidth. Many consumers expected to pay a premium for a high-fidelity loudspeaker basically because of its increased bandwidth. Even today, many audiophiles and audio engineers seem convinced that the road to hi-fi heaven lies at the frequency extremes. Of course, music lovers know that this is patently false, and that the emotional content and drama of live music have little to do with the frequency extremes.
H. A. Hartley - a contemporary of Voigt and Lowther - devoted much of his life to perfecting the single-driver, full-range, loudspeaker. He lived through the transition from full-range to multi-way, and clearly realized that the widest frequency response was obtainable from a multi-driver design. Hartley noted that if mere width of frequency response was the ultimate goal then such a system would be ideal. Sure audiophiles want it, he said, but I have no real evidence that music lovers want it. His original bandwidth desideratum for music lovers, laid down in the 30s, was perfect reproduction between the limits of 32 and 9,000 Hz. With 30 years worth of hindsight, he expanded the limits from 20 to 12,000 Hz. The crucial point is that while theres nothing wrong per se with the pursuit of bass or treble extension to the threshold of audibility, the heart and soul of the music remain within the range of 60 Hz to 9 kHz. And that, my friends, is precisely the frequency domain of the full-range driver. Its magic comes from having a single coherent voice span the critical midrange and lower treble octaves.
Andrew, rebels unite! Thanks for the open minded response to my post about Rotel. That's why I listed other options I like better IMHO. Always interesting to hear people bash stuff and see what THEY like. So maybe people prefer Rotel and not like Denon (sort of dead sounding), Harmon Kardon, or NAD but that's how I hear it anyhow. Good luck on the Denon D-F101s if you get it. I've had my eye on that chip-amp receiver but can't buy it alone. Too bad Denon dropped the Mission M71 speakers that used to come with it. You will really need to use your own speakers now. I think you will be pleasantly surprised at the improvement over JVC. Just my opinion again, good luck.
Mdhoover, nice review. I think I can relate to the type of sound you describe. Sounds like they are well worth the money for what they offer. They are on my list of speakers to audition.
Well, your aphorism impressed me. I never thought of that before. I agree the internet is a better place to get straightforward ideas with less of the agenda of the mass media. So where can I check out the Intuitive Design Summits?
Good article. I liked the part "Presumably, more intense interpersonal threats often trigger quick, self-protective responses that mute our initial feelings of dislike". Sort of like willing ourselves to like the stereo we bought while if we heard the same setup at someone else's house we'd not like the sound so much because there was no self-investment. It is a challenge to solve the hi-end audio conundrum. I see the first step as separating the folks who just want to spend a lot of money for bragging rights from folks who are in it for the sound. Nothing wrong with having nice stuff like Porche, swimming pool etc. It's just that companies like Wilson, IMHO, create a twisted snarl of confusion between big bucks and better sound. While I can't fight through Wilson's logic, I know they are propagating a really screwed up philosphy which is killing hi-end audio. I.E. 30% drop in sales in the past 2 years. Sure there is room for everyone in hi-end audio. But I'm trying not to get confused by the people in it for the sake of throwing their money (or superior intelligence) around. A perfect example is Stereophile's June 2006 "As we see it". Jason brags about how he "stood right next to a Guarneri violin" and "10 feet from Janis Joplin", and was "weaned on the sound of Enrico Caruso". So Jason knows real sound while the rest of us poor souls who have not "accumulated a reservoir of sonic memories and beauty" that "holds me in good stead" will settle for "distinctly colored and hyped sound". Maybe like Focal's $4,000 Electra 1007Be with 5dB boost in treble and bass? Naw, A prestige brand like Focal would never stoop to hyped up sound. Does this guy really know what he is talking about? I'd love to know what Jason has for speakers. Unless he has full range drivers or sits in the tiny sweet spot of 1st order x-over, his speakers are destroying the harmonic structure of the music. Can his golden ears hear this? Unless he plays his stereo at the perfect volume setting as determined by the manufacturer, the balance between tweeter and midrange will be off giving too bright or too dull a sound. Heck the guy's not even bright enough to face the speakers towards each other to cancel out the sound when breaking in his Bybees, thus "sorely testing the patience of my spouse".
Thanks Mdhoover, I'm not always sure how my comments come across given my system. For now I'm happy living in a state of "good enough". More bass would be nice. As good as other stereos sound in my search for perfection(Creek / Epos M15 in particular) what I have is okay for now. When my Panasonic mini broke down, it came down to a decision between the real deal and a better mini-system. Well plan "A", the real deal, didn't work out with more tears of heartache than tears of joy so went with plan "B".
Hi Timrhu, no photo of mine I'll try to get one can't promise when. Very similar to these
Mine are much prettier IMHO being blue metallic/clear coat automotive finish with silver driver.
These rollerblocks look very good to me because they have metal bearing surface but are damped with wood which has nice tonality. My metal ones are somewhat bright so now back to the foot smoothing stones. From what I can gather, make sure the bearing surface is **mirror polished** because the ball will get caught in even the tiniest mark and not roll freely. I tried balls from polycarbonate, acrylic, delrin, maple wood, and brass but steel has the lowest rolling resistance. May try ceramic which cost $3.95 per ball. I used 3 rollerblocks - 2 at the front and one at the back.
Another good tweak is Novus #1 polish on CD's. I rub most of it off after it dries with a glasses microfiber cloth I got at Wal-Mart for $2.00.
Gmood1, my speakers are very similar to what is in the photo 7" x 5" x 7" and tuned to 100hz with a 1" dia. x 2" long vent. Actually seem tuned to 80hz when I play test tones. Mark, there is a lot to like with S.E.T's. For some reason the "pleasing sound quality" of these speakers is very tubelike even with S.S. The Almarro 2-way (4" mid/tweeter - no x-over) in Stereophile was described in the same way as sounding tube-like even with S.S..
You're right, the BSC I use are in the form of tone controls on my Denon. -2dB at 10k / +2dB at 100hz / +2dB at 80 hz. These speakers sound very full as compared to the "direct" setting on the Denon. I've had the same setup for over a year now and can't tell you how happy this little system makes me. My goal is to duplicate the equalized sound with an unequalized 4" or the 2" Jordans.
Gymane, hey, you're the first to respond!! Courageous to post here :-). My goal is to improve what I have with no drawbacks. The JX6 data I got from Ted (not the website) shows the HF to be as rough as my 871's and appears brighter as well. Usable bass to 90hz not into the 80's as I'd hoped. I want to try it, but only with money back guaranty as $250 is a fair amount to blow. We'll see. Besides I've talked to Alan at Tang-Band and T-B will be improving their W4-1320 so I can always wait. I finally got my butt out from behind the computer and made a few sets of steel / aluminum rollerballs under the CDP. I used Stevie Ray Vaughn's "Couldn't stand the Weather" as my reference. WOW, drums have incredible impact. Single drivers really pick up the improved attack and focus vibration elimination does. Problem is the brightness. I will be experimenting with cork damping as neoprene is not enough. Also will be swapping out brass, polycarbonate, maple wood, and lead balls to try and keep the resolution but eliminate the brightness. It's absolutely amazing how you can tune a system with what you put under the CDP. Sort of like tubes. If you want a set to play around with, e-mail me. Also really excited about the Sony SRP-P50 amp for $250. Said to sound better than any gainclone and very close to class "A" amps like the Sugden. Also being a real product vs. a kit it can be sold. Reminds me of my trip to Circuit City and listening to receivers. The Sony was so incredibly better than anything else the salesman and I couldn't even talk, we just laughed it was so good. I respect the audiophile industry and "get" what they are trying to do but.... . Where did all the fun go with cheap products? You won't find it in the mainstream, published audio industry for the most part. Remember the audio cheapskate, audio anarchist etc? John Marks did publish my recommendation to him about the $449 Harmon Kardon 3480 receiver (available 1/2 price refurbished for ~$200 from Harmonaudio.com) but was suspiciously quiet about describing it's sonic qualities. As you know, there is pretty inexpensive stuff out there that just pulls the carpet out from under what high end audio is today. Want to get more people into high-end audio? Turn them onto the cheap stuff that offers real value for the money. Sorry for the rant.
