I have not updated this in more than a year. Finally sold the Sarastro 2s to a friend. The Sarastros were not a good match to my room. The rear firing config. excited the longitudinal mode significantly. They have some non-linearities that I cannot effectively compensate for given my room limitations. This is not to the speaker's fault as they sound much better at my friend's larger listening space. To say the speakers are too big for the room would only be partial truth.
This is not due to lack of effort. I went thru acoustic consulting with Rives and then local expert Bob Hodus. Read up on Handbook of Room Acoustics and Sound reproduction. After the consultations, I did a lot of experiments to improve the room acoustics. Rm is 22'x14' x 10'. Dimensions are not bad but one side wall has windows occupying >2/3 of surface area. There are also a door & a fire place along the mid axis of the room, two walls were interior walls which are less robust in bass reinforcement. Room is at mid level with living space above and below. Previously, after reading the Get better sound book, I had settled for a listening location at 4ft from backwall. This allowed for boundary bass boost which overcame a bass cancellation problem (mid axis, quater wavelength listener to boundary) at 35-40hz. However, primary length mode at 25hz (7db) muddled up the sound. Despite treating the rearwall, the comb filtering effect from the rearwall markedly reduced transpancy and smoothness.
Rives Audio: I went with level 2 consultation and also bought the room measuring kit to allow for repeated measurements along the way. I was quite weary of the actual translation of mathematical modeling into the field. Richard was very helpful in educating me to use ETF and BARE. He was excellent in recommending RPG products, different type of curtains, blinds for different applications. Rives also had all the contruction methods for bass traps and diffusors. Although I preferred the looks of built in traps and diffusors, I went the way of RPG and GIK. My friends had ripped out acoustic constructions that they didn't like and that's just too painful for my wife. Room tuning is complex and requires much trial and error. Base of my previous experiences, I was also worried about resonances of wood diffusors (ceiling and sidewalls). Rives ultimately set the listening location at 9ft from the rear wall. The result was much improved clarity and smoothness along with reduction of room modes. The suckout at 35-40hz is still present but reduced in bandwidth and severity. Richards felt that is acceptable in my case as there is smoothing in human hearing. Bass was flat on psychoacoustic curve on BARE. (I thought this has something to do with combination of gating and smoothing. I could produce a similar curve on Fuzzmeasure when I played with smoothing and gating time.) Rives also had even handed approach in balancing RT 60, freq response, absorption and diffusion.
Bob Hodus: I seeked the help of local expert Bod Hodus in hope of eliminating the suckout entirely and also to provide a second opinion before engaging in a sofit / ceiling construction proposed by Rives. Bob was a pleasure to work with and very willing to educate. His approach was entirely hands on. He focus mainly on frequency response curve and uses absorption mostly. Using continuous test sweep, we went thru inumerable listening locations, reconfiguration of bass traps and speaker locations. At the end of the day, he got rid of the suckout entirely, low bass 20-40hz was linear without boost or suckouts. It is done by sitting 12 ft from the rear wall. THat left me with only 10ft betw me and the front wall, not a lot of room to position the rear firing Sarastros. I was excited with the new result and invited listening group over. All felt low bass was excellent but trade off was made in clarity of midrange as speakers are too close to the wall.
I thought about this for a while and kept rereading the Handbook of Room Acoustics. "Bass is best thought of as waves or pressure zones and high frequencies are more similar to light rays (hence the term specular reflection)." Although my room is symmetric in dimension, the asymmetric construction allowed for the most even bass pressure distribution at the 12 ft point. What if I were to set up the speakers along the opposite wall and check if bass linearity persist at the same spot. Sure enough, the bass alignment remained the same and I got 12ft betw me and my new front wall. This allowed for more room for the speakers to breath. It also prompted me to choose a speaker with no rear wiring port/woofers. I went with the Isis after auditioning Rockport, YG, Magico. I am quite happy with my third pair of Avalons.
After the bass foundation was set, I proceeded to adorn all surfaces and experimented with a few tweaks.
Frontal wall: Tried RPG skylines, hemifusors, abfusors, wood constructed diffusors, BAD Arcs. The wood constructed diffusors were the worst. They diffused effective but they also sounded. THere was marked resonace in 150-200hz range measurable on both Fuzzmeasure and ETF. Subjectively, they were like adding more speakers in the room. They enriched the wood tone during playback. With more of them, the main speakers disappeared as more of these diffusors made sound. This was pleasing for a short while. I think there are marketed room tweaks that work on similar effect. They extend the midrange resonance to balance out the slap echo in the highs and bass boom in many untreated room. The 7inch skylines were very good and produced smooth midrange and treble (largest effective bandwidth). They brought a lot of focus to the center stage if you put them in the center (suggested by Rives). I almost installed them permanently until I played the XLO test disc. It consisted of Bill Johnson walking around the room while percussing a gong. With skylines at the center, he could not walk away from the center but he could walked far away to the side. THe extruding blocks of the skylines were actually vibrating during playback. It was ruining the subtle spatial clues need for proper localization. I suspect the effect would be less if I was further away from the front wall. The hemifusors were better in this regard as there are no extruded blocks to vibrate. The BAD ARCs were the best as they were combination tools (absorb + diffuse). The soundstage was the most organized and yet able to portray variations in depths. Abfusors were almost as good but why pay more for the same thing. I later constructed a dome with 3 to 4 BAD ARC panels of varying curvature and width to be placed at the center. This dome pushed the centerstage forward and increased focus ( effect can be modified by changing width and curvature). I could see why so many rooms have this. This did not work for me as I was quite close to the speakers (8 ft). I ended up with three panels evenly spread out in front.
Sidewall: Tried aborption panels first. They decreased reflections and created more focused but smaller soundstage in comparison to the diffusors. They decreased the amplitude of the reflections as seen on the ETF impulse response but the reflections were still very focused in the time domain. With combo tools like BAD ARCs, the reflections were decreased in amplitude and also spreaded out over time. It tricked the ears into thinking the boundaries were farther away. Not treating the first reflection point of the ipsilateral speaker created a wide soundstage in a different way. The sound source appeared wider but price was paid on impulse response and soundstage specifity. Treating the 1st reflection of the contralateral speaker was just as important as the ipsilateral reflection point. The crosstalk was reduced. ie, the left ear heard less of the right speaker.
Backwall: I used a few RPG skylines to great effect. The slight resonance is no longer an issue as they are behind me and ten feet away. Later, I tried 5 columns of Ikea expedit shelfs positioned in at an angle. This worked even better with better bandwidth. Depth was increased to 12inch and area of coverage was increased. I had two very narrow band suckout(less than one sixth octave) from only the left speaker at 50 Hz and 110Hz. These completely disappeared after installing the Ikea shelfs. Only part of each shelf was filled with a mix of cds and LPs to maximize the diffusive effects. One drawback, they increased midbass reverb at 60-80hz via combination of blocking the fire place, altering overall room acoustics and there own resonances. I had to increase bass traps at the corner.
Ceilling: Very important yet frequently overlooked area. Before treating the ceiling, the soundstage would rise when orchestra went full tilt (Similar effect to broadening of sound source). Hemifusors and skylines were similar in effect. When they fell off, hemifusors survived much better as there were no extruded blocks to be broken. One of my more embarressing moments when hosting. Lucky it did not land near the tonearm during play. I had considered doing suspended wood panels or maybe acrylic panels. After having the Expedit shelfs increased bass reverbs, I am not going that route on the ceiling. Just imagine if a wood panel came loose from the ceiling.
Bringing it together: All these traps, diffusers, combo tools are used to optimize soundstage, impulse response and frequency response. They frequent have unintended effect on reverb at a particular bandwidth. The soft diffusors were great as they did not make sound of their own. However, they markedly curtailed the high frequencies (>10khz) reverbs as they increased soft surface area of the room significantly. Large hard surface adds resonance of their own and alter room acoustics. Attention needs to be paid to maintain RT60 in an even handed manner. This is at least as important as freq response curve. As the RT60 trends down for a higher resolution sound, it is very easy to kill the high frequencies and quite difficult to bring down mid and low bass reverb.. At one point, my system sounded lean in bass. I had five large removable wood panels installed to block off all windows in the room and installed a 2 inch solid wood door with soundproofing. Surprising, the amplitudes of the room modes and bass alignment are not significantly different but the RT 60 at the bass 40-80hz were drastically prolonged. The noise floor of the room dropped to 40 db but it was like a tomb. The bass was muddy and standing waves were very problematic. In this exercise, I learnt that at least in my situation, the room dimensions governed the amplitude and freq. of the modal response but the degree of reverb is largely controlled by the structure. It is very hard to paaively trap mid and low bass reverb (
I am sure my experiments and observations are flawed. Feel free to point out any deficiencies so I can learn and benefit.
Speakers previously owned: B&W 805, JM lab Diva BE, Avalon Opus Ceramique, Thiels, Harbeths, Quad 2805, Avalon Diamond, Verity Sarastro 2
Amps previously owned: Boulder 1060, Vac phi 300.1, Jadis DA88S, Pass lab X350.5, Naim 250.2, ASL 1009 and ASL hurricane, Mcintosh 275.... etc. Heard in my sytem: ML432, Lamm M2.2, etc/
Preamp previously owned: ARC Ref3, Ref 5, BAt 51se, Naim 282. Heard in my system:,Shindo, Halcro
Previous Phono: AYre px5e; ARC PH7, ASR exclusive 2010. Heard in my system: Lamm, Nagra VPS, Shindo, Halco, Allnic
Previous carts: Zyx Universe, airy; My Sonic lab ultraeminent, airtight PC1. Heard in my system: Goldfinger, PC1 supreme
Previous tonearm: Graham 2.2, Davinci 12", triplanar 7
Previous tables: SME 20/2; Avid Acutus
Here is my opinion and preference about different carts that have gone thru my system. Just opinions and I am no expert. My preference is limited by my ability to setup (sub)optimally and by phonostage matching.
My preference in carts have changed and current favourites are Lyra titan i and dyna v1T.
Zyx Universe: Very refined and detailed but not enough macrodynamics and bass.
Airtight PC1/Supreme: Most amount of bass. A little on the warm side. Played well on all three arms, worked well with tube + ss phono. Sounds good with many different loading. Lacked a little detail and refinement comparing to other top carts. The supreme is slightly more refined comparing to the regular PC1. Slow transients.
My Sonic Lab Ultraeminent: This used to be my favourite cart.. More detailed and energetic than the Airtight line up. Quantity of bass is less but quicker. Excellent bass power carried into the decay. Transient attack is not as fast as XV1T or Titan I and perhaps not as open sounding. In combination with the Davinci, it conveys the most ambient info and float the soundstage best.
Dynavector XV1T: I think this is the most neutral cart.. Faster transient attack than MSL/AT and more open sounding. Bass is impactful with less energy in the decay. I like this one on the phantom best. On the Davinci, the midrange is marginally richer (maybe wood wand) but the lightening transient and focus were attenuated.
Titan I: My number one cart after finding an excellent match with DV 507 arm. Fast and open like the XV1T (both stiff body contruction) but with even better grip on the Bass. The transient changes on double bass is very well portrayed from the attack to the decay. It portrayed wide tonal and macrodynamic contrast and make the performance very exciting. More focused and controlled than PC1. To my surprise, I never find it bright when properly adjusted. In terms of setup, the window of optimal performance may be small but not too hard to arrive at. You know when u get this one wrong. I like this less on the Davinci & phantom. The triplanar and Davinci adds a little warmth and roundedness that it does not need. The Graham could not control resonance as well and had a little top end glare. With the 507mk2, the heavy arm and flux damping dissipate the energy perfectly. Just all the glories, nothing more and nothing less.
Coralstone: I never intended to get this one because of the warm fuzzy reputation of Koetsu. My dealer offer a partial trade deal and I could not resist. Another surprise, it is very detailed with a fluid midrange and extended topend. Bass power is slightly less than Titan/ultraeminent but not too fat behind. Only have this on the Phantom so far. Very difficult to align because the stone block my line of sight. I probably have not optimize this one due to neck spasm. It is also better played on an arm with Azimuth adjustment to minimize crosstalk.
Goldfinger v2: Another excellent cart.. Very limited experience but a friend was kind enough to bring it over for a spin. Similar sound to the MSL. Heaviest cart i have handled.
Rtn1, You system is amazing and the listening space looks great. In my relatively narrow room, I like it better with more toe in to minimize side wall reflection.
Audioblazer, Sorry to take so long to answer your post. I needed some time to post the data. I hope this helps. Please also refer to the fuzzmeasure tweaks for more graphs.
The yellow curve is my preferred listening position: 10ft from the wall behind the listener. The sound pressure is reasonably even except the last octave (20-40Hz) is a few db off. However, it is very linear and free from room boost. The primary length and width mode are taken out of play (27hz, 40hz). RT60 is also reasonable as is the impulse response. When tuning a room, Spl/freq curve is only one set of data. RT60 and impulse response are also very important.
The purple curve is what Rives audio put me at. 7-9ft from wall behind listener. The severe suckout at around 40hz is probably due to cancellation from sitting at the mid axis of the room. 7ft is the quater wavelenth of 40Hz. At a few inches off the mid axis, this cancellation disappear. Rives' explanation was that RT60 and impulse response are very good . Human hearing involves certain degree of smoothing so a narrow band trough is OK. The primary length mode at 27hz also start to kick in. In listening to music, the yellow curve has slightly better bass weight. Not as much as the graph would suggest.
The Blue curve is 4ft from the back wall. The 40hz suckout has pretty much disappeared due to boundary reinforcement from the back wall. The 27hz primary length mode is in full swing and so are the secondary modes at 50hz 70hz, 80hz. Some visitors prefer this listening location as you can feel these modes in your chest and teeth. This is not to my taste. The impulse response is quite poor. The comb filtering effect is severe. As the distance betw listener and speakers is increased. The ratio of direct sound vs indirect sound is decreased. On the impulse response, you can see the reflected impulse is about 1/3 the amplitude of the direct impulse. The reflection from the back wall is very strong and arrives very close to the direct impulse despite diffusion. I have also tried heavy absorption along the backwall and it is not much better. There is audible loss in transparency and a clean transient response in not maintained. Many audiophiles, dealers like to place the listening location 2-4 ft from the backwall to harness room gain in the bass. I quite surprised that this is actually recommended in the "Get Better sound" book.
Good luck. Alton Everest's HAndbook of room acoustic is extremely informative and relatively easy read. I highly recommend it.
Glai, excellent explanation in your description of your room treatment & detail responses is a treat to read. Have you overcome your 35-40hz suckout? I have a similar suck out at 35 hz. My room dimension is 14.5 ft x 25ft x 10.5 ft, quite similar in size with your room. I agrees with your approach of using portable room treatment. I did a Rives 1 treatment ( only available in my country ) , didn't quite work out, poor imaging , suck out around 35 hz, peak around. 65-70hz. Gotten rid of the common curve passive resonator by rives. DIY some PRD diffuser ( similar to skyline ), imaging much much better. On hindsight I thk is tough to expect theoretical acoustic design to work as well as I wanted it. Too many variable. Rives 1 probably didnt work due to many reasons, eg workmanship etc. So would be keen to knw whether you have gotten rid of the suckout . Thks
I'm loving my Isis more and more each year. This speaker has gotten better each step of the way.
One tip is that the Isis is extremely sensitive to toe-in. I can get totally different sounds whether they are positioned as you have them in the photo, or pointed straight ahead. It really depends upon the music. If you can roll tubes, the sound will really need another position change. In fact, anything I do upstream requires repositioning the speakers to lock the image. I feel like I have 2 totally different systems in one.
Also, cabling is huge with these speakers. You need to find the right combination. I've heard more cables kill the magic rather than improve it. One thing is for sure, you want a cable that is capable of transmitting the full bandwidth. Anything that rolls the treble and is lean on bass will be a major compromise.
I have not had the xv1s but still think about getting it on occasions. My experience with XV1T is as follows:
Graham 9inch: Very fast transient, well integrated bass, extended highs, I could not get the soundstage as wide as the other arms. I am not sure why. Perhaps slightly more tracking error comparing to longer arm. The 9 inch also rocks slightly during record warps and compromise crosstalk. I always use a ring with this arm.
Graham 12inch: Still fast transient but bass is a hair slower than the 9incher. Treble is smoother but no less detail. Perhaps the longer arm tube better damp cartridge resonance. Big difference to the 9inch is the soundstage. Much wider and greater sense of space. Maybe due to less tracking error and it does not rock side to side as much. It does not let go of the bass notes as fast as the 9inch. Probably from increased inertia.
Dynavector 507 mk2: Bass as fast as the 9inch Graham and soundstage like the 12 inch graham. A very focused, calm yet dynamic presentation. Can be a little too calm when not optimized. This high mass arm along with magnetic damping control resonance very well. Only complaint here is that it is tweaky. Need to try different counter weight mass, dynamic vs static balance. The VTA and azimuth adjustments are not as fine or repeatable as the Graham. The shorter vertical moving arm has very small inertia. Baerwald, Logren, Stevenson all sounded very different not only due to different tracking error profile but different overhangs change effective mass as well. Excellent antiskate system as tension on string can be adjusted with a dial. Someone should make a 12 inch version of this as the short wand can keep vertical inertia under control.
VTA is not as repeatable as graham (markings) but I treat the VTA lever like a hand on the clock and record the VTA when needed. They should put some reading on the dial.
TW 10.5: Sounds great as well. Very detailed treble and midrange down to midbass and lots of focus. Soundstages very well. The pins of the XV1T sticks out very far back and creates ergonomic issue. There is not enough room to maintain intended overhang. The work around is to increase PS distance by 5 mm and creates more room. I could not get the low bass to dissipate as fast as the 9inch graham or dynavector 507. I must admit I did not spend a huge amount of time on setup so perhaps the low bass will integrate in better hands. It sometimes reminds me of a Breuer or BRinkmann but with facility to adjust VTA on the fly and azimuth.
Davinci 12 inch: imbue the xv1t with rich glorious wood tone. Soundstages very well. However, it also slow down the trasient of the cart. Coupled with no azimuth adjustment to minimize crosstalk and inconvenient VTA adjustment, this arm is just audio jewellery. I view tonearms more as tools to extract the most from a cart. It is simply more jewel than tool. I cannot agree with the high rating from absolute sound.
Triplanar 7: Not a bad listen but I could not get the same focus as the TW 10.5, Graham, or dyna 507. Very easy adjustments with slightly cumbersome azimuth. THe azimuth rotates very slightly when clamping down the final adjustment. I actually need to set the azimuth a little off so when clamped, it rotates into the optimized adjustment. VTA, VTF, antiskate are very easy.
FR 64S: Surprising very good listen as well.
My favorite arms for the dynavector xv1t are the grahams and dyna 507. I suspect the centroid arm would be superb as well. The centroid picks up where the Graham left off. There are less moving parts and center of gravity is just below the pivot point. IN exchange, it is not as easily adjusted as the Graham in VTA on the fly and azimuth. THe dynavector arm is very heavy and may throw off some suspended tables. Centroid has a very large base and may not be easily fitted into other tables. Graham is not perfect but very ergonomic. Unipivot designs lend lots of focus in the sound presentation. It demands proper azimuth and antiskate adjustment. I suspect if the stylus is not pendicular and tacking at the center of the groove, the force vector exerted onto the stylus will have a larger lateral component. This will rotate the cart along the axis of the cartridge body. The geometry and many listening parameters fall apart in addition to crosstalk.
THe XV1T manages excellent transient but without sending tons of energy into the arm. Overall not too fuzzy in arm matching.
Glai, could you compare your XV-1t on the Graham, TW 10.5 and DV 507MkII? What are the differences? I ask, as i have the XV-1s and look for a very good tonearm for that, even if i know, that there are so many circumstances that influence the final sonic results...
I didnt slag anything hatari. The Sarastro is a wonderful speaker by all means. On the other hand I believe the Tidal is one step closer to what I like.
Mike - you're always in love with your latest, and slagging your last. Not long ago it was the Verity you loved. Can't talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Hello Glai and thanks for the thoughtful response.
My findings are similar to yours. Although the Sarastro is really a great speaker it was:
1) Too big for my 20m2 room 2) Too sweet for my tastes. After a while I could hear the Sarastro and not the recordings. For me, I want each recording to sound completely different from the previous one, as they were meant to be. The Sarastro had a very imposing character on all recordings which tend to favour jazz and classical. 3) Not intended for Rock. Actually there is no way you could enjoy rock or hard music from this speaker. 4) Not very coherent. I could easily here the ribbon, the mid, being disconnected with each other, thus audible drivers and crossovers. 5) Very emphasized and sloppy low frequencies. I could could never get a fast, dumped bass note. That was also due to my valve amps but certainly wasnt the main reason.
It indeed had great presence and transparency but I finally think that this was due to its coloration and weird frequency response.
On the other hand the Tidal is an all around player. It serves different kinds of music equally and I could dare say it has almost zero character of its own. What you hear is what is on the disk. And for me this is the definition of "High Fidelity"! I understood that musicality has nothing to do with a coloured midrange but more in presenting the music exactly as it is .
I was also very tired with the laid back presentation of the Sarastro, sometime I felt bored listening to music.
Enzo- Yes, I am an complete nut case in exhausting room treatment options. Boarding up the windows took an entire day and cost >$1500. I still have to pay to remove them and get the room painted. F%^$#!!! At least, I got some questions answered.
Arygo- It is very interesting that both you and I went thru a similar change. I would like to know what you think as well.
The design choices dictate the strength and weaknesses in both speakers.
Sarastros 2: Ribbon tweeter, audiotech midrange, well constructed rear firing woofer, first order crossover, midrange extending very low and very high 5-6Khz. The high 93db sensitivity, first order crossover and individually excellent driver units lend the Sarasto superb transparency, presence and immediacy. Beautifully finished cabinets, flight case with custom foam along with service from dealer, distribute and headquaters are absolutely first class. It played a big yet delicate sound with a relatively small enclosure. ( I can't help but notice some similarities with Kaiser Kawero recently at RMAF). The design also means there are nonlinearities both on and off axis. It is up to the end user to minimize the non-linearities by optimizing room interactions. I guess that is why it includes a visit by dealers or distributor. This can be still be a tall order depending on room conditions.
On the techincal side: The ribbon tweeter is extremely fast and transparent. However, the output at the 4-5khz region is significantly down comparing to the its peak output at 10khz. Other companies use a small stiff midrange which can play up to 6khz without beaming and manage a smoother hand off ( aerial) . The Verity design use a large 6 inch midrange to span many octaves down to midbass (60hz) so the dispersion at 3-6khz of the midrange is quite limited ( beaming) . The tweeter unit has superb lateral dispersion so there is no way to optimize this by toe out. The upper midrange will fall off before the treble does. The tweeter dispersion is much more limited in vertical axis so playing with listening height and tilt are critical. I feel the speakers are really designed for tubes ( esp Wavac ) as high out imped from amps will shelf down the output from the ribbon which has very low imped.. This will even things out. Other things are wave guide or toliet paper which are suboptimal. Stereophile said the hyper up tweeter may work for overdamped room. I don't think this is the way to go as you would be killing high frequency reverb. A price is paid in time domain to compensate for even sound pressure.
I love audio tech midrange, very naturally texture, there is a suppleness that is rarely found. People rave about the radial midrange in Harbeth. There is really no comparison. I owned and sold a pair of M30s. I cannot bare to play them next to the Sarastros.
Cannot really talk about bass without the room. In my room, rear firing arrangement excited the longitudinal modes at 25hz, 50hz, 80hz much more than front or downward firing config by additional 5db. I can choose different sitting location to take one of these modes out of play. I am still left with two peaks. The company's philosophy in coupling with the room to get more powerful bass has succeeded. If my modes from other dimensions ( width, height and diagonal ) slots neatly in between, then it would have worked better. The woofers go very high (200-300hz) if i remember correctly, please refer to stereophile as they tested version one and version 2). THe midrange play down to 50-60hz. This is largely the result of first order crossover. Stereophile said there was output drop off due to poor implementation of crossover. I am no expert but suspect this is incorrect. It is not the crossover or poor electrical phase integration. It is acoustic phase integration which is impacted upon by boundary interaction. At some speaker locations, I have measured a 200-300hz drop off similar to stereophile. After shifting the setup across the room, this had largely disappear but not completely eliminated. Having a large overlap region while having drivers in different location make this very sensitive. The drivers are in phase but different boundary interaction of individual drive units can produce out of phase cancellations. Using RPG optimizer is helpful here. The 200-300hz suckout is not present when I measure the drivers individially.
A simplistic summary would be "my room sucks" or I suck or I made the mistake of "large speakers small room". I would not deny it. More accurately, my room is not large enough to allow for more speaker/ listening location possibilities to compensate for all the above issues. Two of the room boundaries are incomplete with lots of bass leakage so low bass can be extremely linear and free of boost. In moderate sized room the modes tend to crowd in the mid bass 50-100hz and it did not complement the coupling with wall philosophy. Not to mention, I subsequently have an even larger speaker that worked out.
They sound much better in my friend's living space. The larger dimension has primaries modes that are lower in frequencies which complemented the speaker better. I can still hear the relative strength and weakness of the design. I honestly still miss them when I see them, almost like an previous relationship. (Good thing my wife never read this forum)
Isis: This is a more linear design on and off axis, top and bottom. The black diamond tweeter can go high but more importantly, it can also handle the lower end of the spectrum. Every company talks about pushing tweeters into 50Khz and above but how about a tweeter that can still do 2-3khz while maintaining those specs. The dispersion of the tweeter ( no grills) is still wider than the midrange but this is controlled by the felt that surround the tweeter acting as off axis absorber. The dispersion is evenly distributed as I measure on and off axis. Despite having two 13 inch woofers, the room modes was half the amplitude of the Sarastros 2. I removed half of the heavy bass traps. All drivers on a single plane. Overall a much more coherent sound. I had some reservations about the ceramic midrange. Although they have excellent transient attack, i have previously found them to be over damped, thin sounding and lack texture or suppleness. I had Avalon diamonds before and I like the larger midrange in the Isis much better. I suspect the smaller 3-4 inch midrange in the Diamond move less air and forces the woofers to play into high frequencies. This is the primary reason why I did not choose the Avalon Time. Tidal, Kharma, Martin Design don't the small midrange in their better models. Having said that, a lot of it may be due to poor impulse response and lack of proper diffusion in my room when I had the Diamonds. I noticed a lot of dry ringing sound at RMAF when ceramic drivers are in use. For some reasons, other drivers have less of this issue.
Subjectively, the resolution in the midrange and treble is similar. Bass resolution is better but perhaps less exciting ( more accurate). The Verity used to kick me in the chest and rattles my teeth. There is a certain immediacy and presence that I miss. Ultimately the coherence, linearity and balance allow for more insight into the recording.
Gordon, I just saw your updates. Fantastic. You must write about all your experiences to share. I'm especially curious about your experiences with the room treatments like RPG skylines/hemi diffusers.
Luxman M-800a bridged? Some say that you lose a little dynamics like dampening factor with bridged amps. How do the Luxman's sound in bridged mode versus normal stereo mode? I just ordered a pair of M-600a Luxmans that I plan on using as monoblocks also so my question is not an idle one.
System edited: Went thru Rives consulting and additional consulting with Bob Hodus. Read " Master Handbook of Acoustics" and "Sound Reproduction: Room and loudspeakers". Rearanged the entire room to opposite end. Experimented with different diffusors: skyline, hemifusors , abfusors, BAD ARCs on all surfaces except the wall. Learned to use ETFs, BARE in addition to Fuzz measure. Installed a 2inch solid wood door with sound proofing. Boarded up all windows and subsequently removed all the boards. New blinds/curtains, shelf units serving as diffusors. Will post pics and new results. Replaced Verity Sarastro 2s with Avalon Isis. Sold Davinci and triplanar tonearm. Added TW 10.5 & Dynavector 507 mk2. Added modified SP10mk2 ( Chris Thornton) and soon to add Brinkman Bardo. Dedicated subpanel Romex 10G wires. Sold the cagefull of Shunyatas including three Anacondas. Replaced with Furutech and Oyaide bulk cables. Added Purepower 2000 + soon to have pattery pack. Capable of running all front ends on battery for short duration. Joined local listening group and received tremendous help in analog setup. Learned to adjust azimuth and antiskate by ear instead of using low crosstalk method. Adjust VTA by ear instead of USB microscope.
THe pics were taken over a year ago when I was starting to consult with Rives. They were on small rugs for easy repositioning. They sound worse on the rug as they excite the floor more.
Thank you for takig the time to post. You are right on many counts here and side firing is probably better than rearfiring for my room. The Verity did not match well with my room and I have sold them to a friend. They sounded much better at his place.
The system config is old and I have since been thru Rives consulting and another local consultant. Both parties contributed significantly to my knowledge of the room and the sound of the system. I did a lot of reading and room redecorating and got better sound from the Verity. I was still not very happy. At the end, I found another pair of speakers that suit my room better.
Now I have sold the speakers and many other items. I should find time to detail what I went thru.
I post some opinions on the carts but my skills in setting them up are quite deficient. As I am closing on being done with the room setup, I currently making an effort to learn how to setup analog playback chain. I ordered the USB microscope but more importantly, I need to learn what to listen for when making adjustments.
I feel I am overly dedicated (especially financially) to stereo but my dedication pales in comparison to yours.
If you ever come to the SF bay area, please look me up as I have many questions for you regarding analogs + more.
Dear Glai: Very nice system you own. Not an easy task the matching between system and room in a room like yours.
Very interesting cartridges " review " you made. I know very weel all those cartridges but the XV-1t. My take are a little different on them but my system is different especially the phonolinepreamp that is critical for any cartridge evaluation.
I can see that your speakers are " seated " on something like a rug instead to be firmily to the floor, why is this? better performance?.
Btw, I read that you don't like the side firing woofers on some speakers. Trhough my experiences about and in rooms like your I have to say that side firing woofers make more good than damage, could help.
Other thing that I'm thinking looking to your system ( and through my experiences about. ) is that the integration of two subwoofers in true stereo fashion could help to solve/alleviate room " problems " improving the overall quality performance in your audio system.
Anyway, congratulations for your fine system and your dedication about.
LOL. I have young children at home and my wife would occasionally come in and chew the living S#*& out of me when the music woke the kids up. Talking out being at the edge of your seat while listening to music. Hiring a babysitter and sticking out a man cave were my first steps. A friend of mine started bringing a whole listening group over. She was not thrilled at first but she knew better than to embaress me in public. After a few times, the kids just slept thru the music and she also warmed to my friends.
I think this hobby is overly expensive but still reasonably conducive to a long term marriage. It beats drugs, skiing, golfing, car racing, extramarital activities, scuba, guns, various night scenes etc.
Yes, I was surprised at Philip O Hanlon's demo with luxman integrated driving Wilson speakers. I went thru a few amps before settling on them. I have a pair of cremonas which I occasionally setup with the Luxmans. They do play well together. You are absolutely correct that while the cremonas are sweet and beautiful, they are slightly behind in dynamic freedom and transparency. My wife likes them the best so they are mostly on HT duties in the living room.
You are kind with your comments but the room has many acoustic challenges (side windows, large doorway at middle axis of the room). I have since worked with two different acoustic consultants and made some progress. Rack is out to the side and speakers setup on opposite wall. The posted frequency response graph is in 3rd octave smoothing which hides some ugliness. If you ever come by the SF bay area, come by for a listen. I value friends' opinions especially negative ones. They help in identifying problematic areas that I have not paid attention to before. Sometimes, I get so obsessed with fixing one problem and compromised the big picture. Friends also make this hobby fun and broke my wife in.
